Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The solution to global climate change: Giant Floating Cities that are built by robots

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 03:01 PM
Original message
The solution to global climate change: Giant Floating Cities that are built by robots
Now there's an idea whose time has come. Powered by solar panels and wave energy, these 1/3 mile wide floating cities would be built on the sea floor by a combination of autonomous and human-controlled (via telepresence) robots, then the airlocks would all be sealed and air pumped in to bring the city up to the surface of the water.

But wait. That's too huge to build. Really? Shell is building an oil platform that big: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=296303&mesg_id=296502

A human habitation is far less complex than a combination natural gas + oil rig. But what would it look like?
http://inhabitat.com/lilypad-floating-cities-in-the-age-of-global-warming/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Somebody unrec'd this post. Weird. I think it's a cool idea but with a lot of if's....
If the floating city design was completely "green"--all wastes, human and industrial, recycled.

If solar energy use can be achieved without further polluting/trashing the Earth (pollution from manufacturing parts and from batteries; trashing--more junk having to be "thrown away').

If wave power and the "flotation" process don't further pollute/trash the Earth.

If nobody's left out--homeless, the poor, excluded minorities, designated "undesirables," etc. Would need CONSIDERABLE work on democracy, equality, equal opportunity, social justice, etc.

If transportation to and from the "Lily Pad" city is also non-polluting.

If it can be guaranteed that the Lily Pads--if they were to multiply into many, many Lily Pads--don't further interfere with the ocean's or the atmosphere's functioning. (I'm thinking, for instance, of the tiny deep sea critters whose daily migration to the surface is triggered by nightfall and of sea life that depends on photosynthesis. What happens to complex eco-systems if multiple Lily Pads block sunlight, change air or sea currents, alter temperatures? Not to mention, how are the Lily Pads going to deal with the mountains of bird guano that will accumulate on their pretty eco-spheres, and with birds bashing into them?)

If the "Lily Pad" city also does its part to grow green things in the open air--on the Earth or available to the atmosphere in some way, cuz Climate Change needs to be reversed not just escaped, or, eventually, not even the Lily Pads will help. (The World Wildlife Fund gives us 50* years, at current levels of pollution and consumption--50* years to the DEATH of the planet. If the planet's biosphere goes, the Lily Pads also go--cannot be sustained.)

If it has "designated smoking areas" and other "designated bad behavior areas"--cuz what is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without "bad" behavior--freedom of choice, alternative lifestyles, rogue artists and musicians, "bad boys," "bad girls," crash pads, communes, surly neighborhoods, "artful dodgers," a place to get "blasted" every once in a while for those who need it, crazy religions, soapbox corners, protests, street theater, street vendors, mind-altering substances, graffiti, old warehouses, dark alleys, foreign delis, gambling and what not? If you deprive people of "badness," they will all start murdering each other, in their pristine little eco-pure cubicles.

With these and some other if's adequately addressed, I think it's a GREAT idea to lift people and their activities off the Earth but my idea is that we then let most of the Earth return to Mother Nature's care, to rebuild the fabulous variety and greenness in which we evolved, and which we inherited but which--if thing keep going the way they are--we will not be able to bequeath to future generations. So my idea for the use of Lily Pads does not solve the human over-population crisis. For that, I think we need a second planet---which the WWF, in its press releases on the 50* year death sentence for Planet Earth, sarcastically suggested.

I am not being sarcastic. I think we need to choose a second planet and terraform that planet. Mars is the obvious candidate, but there may be others--some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter might qualify. Cutting back on the space program is absolutely nuts--indeed, suicidal--in my opinion. Unless we are willing to permit truly massive human death, or to inflict truly massive human death, or to force-sterilize most humans, we MUST not only find more room but ALSO save the only biosphere we currently have--Planet Earth--that can sustain us.

----------------------

*(They actually said the planet will be dead by 2050. And we're already 11 years into the century--so we only have 39 years to the death of the planet. Four decades. If we don't change our ways.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. There are a lot of Luddites who think technology is the problem when it is really the solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Agreed. Without some very well thought out technology we are in serious trouble
I'm talking billions of people will die type trouble.

Abuse of technology caused the problems. Idiotic use of outdated technologies like burning crap that was safely kept far, far beneath the ground and then celebrating that as the greatest idea ever. Idiots. It's like the companies all got together and collected the worst ideas on how to manufacture products or whatever and said, "Genius!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yup.
In fact, the technology is already here, we just need to break through the institutional inertia and IMPLEMENT it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Institutional inertia. That's a very nice way to say it.
Yes, the technology is in place already. It's just a big, big construction job. But then again so is a 100 story skyscraper and we've got thousands of those around the world.

As I linked in the OP, Shell is creating an oil platform that is 1/3 mile long. That's friggin' huge!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. That's a whole lot of "inclusiveness"
Perhaps the residents can be matched by their preferences. I'm not a sociologist but one would come in handy trying to figure out if the "night owls" could co-exist with the nudists and the ravers...

I think there have to be boundaries and societal rules that cannot be ignored lest the whole community fall into chaos.

=====================

As to the "green" or "living lightly on the land" aspect, cities are high density and on a per-person basis are more efficient than suburbs or rural living.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
18. I remember seeing this concept months ago
It was so rich people could isolate themselves from the masses during an upheaval. There are also "save the wealthy in orbit" versions of this.

Kristopher's observation about the general market unsuitability of this still holds here. But the rich will pay a premium for a special/rarefied environment if the conditions are right. Frankly, I don't think they should be allowed to have an out of the world they are largely responsible for ruining.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Good question: Should the rich have an out of this world they have ruined?
It's a fair question. They messed it up, maybe they should be required to do the manual labor to clean it up, make it the way it was before their idiocy and greed and sociopathic behavior screwed it up. But do you actually trust them? I sure don't; after all they *are* psychopaths. That's how they got rich in the first place: not giving a shit about any one or any thing but themselves -- no guilt, no remorse, no caring about those they robbed/killed/squashed/ruined/etc., in their quest to get to the top. I think it's just as likely that they would collect enough of the most toxic substances to make a bomb with and then hold the world hostage so they can get back on top again, run their evil empire just as they do today.

Nay. I say we MUST give them an out of this world. A one-way ticket to anywhere, just as long as they have absolutely zero chance of being able to return.

Then the rest of us can clean up the world and live in peace --no psychopaths to throw a monkey wrench in the works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Giant cities are probably not part of any workable, or sustainable, solution
If we're going to continue all the technical infrastructure necessary to create robots, we aren't going to be sustainable, period. How much of the planet do we have to destroy to build one of these?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Luddlite nonsense.
You can go live on a medieval hovel and shovel shit, the rest of humanity will advance beyond oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. No need to be rude, Odin. Saras makes a good point. It's difficult to look at our situation
and not conclude that technology is to blame and so how can it be the solution?

I think that our tinkering natures--our engineering abilities--are inherent to our species. This cannot be changed. No moral suasion will change it. It is a given. So technology WILL be part of the solution, whether we like it or not, or whether it's the best solution or not. There is no going back, as a willed decision of human beings. And in the case of urban areas, there are billions and billions of people who don't really have a choice to return to some prior era idea of simple farming in small communities. There are just too many of them. They can certainly make dramatic changes as part of the solution. But to feed, clothe, house, employ and create some happiness for that many people, while saving the planet, WILL require innovative new technology. Humans do not possess the advanced wisdom and social understanding to simply turn off their dependence on technology, and jettison our inherent evolved love of tinkering, and live some other way.

We may get busted down to a less technological existence, because we're not very advanced as to wisdom and true happiness. So many things can go wrong with our technology--including nuclear disaster, by accident or by war--or, say, disruption of the fragile food chain--that could simply decimate life in urban areas, and we could end up as the wandering tribespeople or peasant farmers of the 6th-9th centuries Italy and Europe, quarrying the Roman aqueducts and roads and temples and palaces and villas and statues, and busting these monuments down, to find rocks to build huts with, and not having a clue what all those structures meant at one time, because so many manuscripts were burnt up in the home fires of the illiterate. Nuclear accident/war, climate change or other disasters brought about by technology could do this to the human race, rather easily, and some of our potential disasters could wipe us out entirely and all other life as well. It could be much worse than the fall of the Roman Empire.

It took ten centuries for Europe to recover from that fall, but, slowly, technology, education and progress recovered, bringing us eventually to today's world, which seems to be at a similar turning point, as the Roman Empire was in the 5th century--a very well organized and long lasting system that reached a state of unsustainability. Too many mouths to feed in Rome, along with too many other needs and desires, too much burden on the military to go out and violently acquire the lands to feed them and to fulfill their other needs and desires. Our lack of sustainability is much more complicated, and on a much bigger scale, with potential for catastrophe for the entire planet, but the parallel is interesting and the upshot is the inevitable decline and fall of unsustainable systems.

I'm no Luddite. I think that technology HAS TO BE part of the solution, partly because we're human and that's who we are--it is our nature to tinker--but mainly because what we are doing to Planet Earth is so drastic. The rate of loss of biodiversity, fresh water and forest cover are truly alarming. The dead zones in the ocean, melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers and climate extremes indicate very alarming pollution levels, and that isn't even to mention the toxics pouring into air, water, land and the food chain--and ultimately into us and other living things--in addition to everything else. If all humans departed Planet Earth tomorrow, the Earth would probably restore itself over time--restore its diversity and greenness, retain its atmosphere and stabilize its climate. But we are not going to depart (any time soon). So, what is the best that humans can do, to at least stabilize things, while we try to figure out what to do about human overpopulation?

What we are best at is technology, and, when needed, cooperation. (We wouldn't have lasted as long as we have, if cooperation were not one of our strongest characteristics, as well as our amazing tinkering ability.)

We need to do three things, urgently, and they all require technology and cooperation: 1) Change our economy (including our tendency to equate happiness with consumer goods); 2) change our energy sources, and 3) plant lots and lots and lots and lots of trees.

Can't change the energy sources without new and better technology.

Can't provide different kinds of happiness--than all this plastic shit from China, and P.R.-driven need for a new car every year and 100 different kinds of toothpaste, and mostly bad food but also strawberries imported from Brazil and lobster from Ecuador, etc.--overly rich, unseasonal food--and so on--without some highly sophisticated systems being put in place, and that requires technology. If you're going to convert to local organic food, you've got to be very efficient about it, to feed billions that way. I think information technology will be the key to that (--organic farmers having better information about food needs, markets, transportation, weather and other factors than any farmers have ever had before in history). Fresh local food is one form of happiness. There are many others--some aided or created by technology, some not. In our society, with its dispersed, broken up families and communities, grandparents being able to see live interactive vid of faraway grandchildren would be a technologically aided form of happiness. New kinds of entertainment--say, grass roots, people-created live drama on the Internet (or via some other new technology) might be another. People need loved ones. They need variety. They need stories. They need connection. They need to express themselves. There are a number of human happiness needs that technology could address, to wean people from needing to possess numerous objects from the far ends of the earth, to be happy. Merely possessing things is not a very satisfactory form of happiness anyway.

This is not to address all forms of happiness needs. There are many that technology cannot address and may even hamper. But technology can and WILL be addressing human happiness needs. It already is, and has been for centuries. The key will be to focus it away from commericialism and toward more satisfying activities--ones that don't pollute and destroy the Earth.

And you can't just plant any trees anywhere--although that's better than nothing. It's best to understand the ecosystems that you introduce millions of trees into, so they fit in and survive. This requires technology--sophisticated mapping and other studies, monitoring of the plantings and so on. Re-forestation is essential to stabilizing the climate. (Forests absorb the pollution that is sending the climate wacko. We've lost 80% of native forests over the last century!). It also has other enormous benefits--reclamation of farm land, restored fisheries, stabilizing soils, tempering climates in very hot desert areas, creating new water systems the natural way--the way forests do it--and more. In effect, we would partially terraforming Planet Earth. Industrialization has gravely harmed its systems. It still lives but barely. We need to boost its capacity to recover. Planting billions of trees would be a big step forward.

Long term, I think we need to get at the basis of matter and learn how to transform one form of matter into another--the ancient dream of the first philosophers/scientists, and more recently of Gene Roddenberry And, long term unless we are going to forcibly limit the human population, or suffer colossal disasters that wipe us all out or wipe out civilization leaving only a few scattered peasants among the Roman ruins, we must move out into space and find or create places to colonize. Both of these things require an intense focus on technology, as well as new levels of cooperation. These are the things we do best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I mostly agree, though I have to disagree with your use of Rome as an example.
Edited on Sat May-28-11 10:21 PM by Odin2005
Most of the technological advances of the classical world did not improve the lot of the average rural farmer very much, they mostly helped the landowners and merchants that made up the ruling class. One the other hand, during the Middle Ages there WAS technological advancements that helped the average person: watermills, windmills, heavy plows that overturn the soil, non-choke horse collars for plows, 3-field agriculture, the list goes on. The fall of Rome was not so much a regression as it was a collapse of the institutions of the proto-capitalist class that ruled the Empire. No need for paved roads when you are not transporting legions or imperial couriers over long distances, dirt and gravel work fine for more ordinary use and require less maintenance. No need for huge aqueducts when the imperial cities had been reduced to small towns when their administrative purpose disappeared.

Why this burst of technological innovation in the Middle Ages? for a long time Trans-Alpine Europe had a low population density and thus there was a labor shortage. In 600AD Trans-Alpine Europe was mostly forest and marsh, by 1300 it was highly productive farmland fueling the growth of mercantile boom-towns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Farming innovations in the Middle Ages prove my point that humans will go on tinkering
and inventing even in the worst conditions.

It may be hard for us to fathom how bad things were for most people during the ten centuries of feudalism, but we do need to try to grasp what a catastrophe the fall of the Roman Empire was, as to human progress. It brought on massive illiteracy and ignorance, loss of medical knowledge and immense suffering from disease, filth and lack of sanitation, and loss of the public bath culture of the Romans and Greeks; it was the severest blow to education, learning and science--summed up by the destruction of the Alexandria Library and skinning alive of its last philosopher, Hypatia, by a mob of Christian monks in 415 AD. That event marks the end of Rome's "pax romana" and rule of law (the upside of Roman rule) and the descent of Europe and the Mediterranean into rampant superstition, with resultant pogroms, witch-hunts, witch-burnings, book-burnings, suppression of free thought, "baptism by the sword," intense persecution of Pagans and of all internal variety and dissent within the Christian religion, the cementing of state power with a tyrannical church and bloody Crusades and other religions wars; also, the catastrophic loss of the status of women and their nurturing and life-affirming Deities, which did not even begin to be recovered until very late in Middle Ages--a loss that has reverberations to this very day and may, indeed, be a chief cause of the demise of the human race, since lack of respect for Mother Earth and narrow, exploitative science, used for the profit of the super-rich, that is deliberately myopic about the complexity of nature--the "whole" of nature--is the greatest mistake of the modern era.

Further, because most people were enslaved to the land and essentially "owned" by one "lord" or another, travel--with its immense cultural and educational benefits--became severely restricted. Ignorance, illiteracy and "book-burning" also brought on a loss of navigational skills and knowledge. Mathematics itself became almost equivalent to the "Devil" (except in the Arab world). Vast archives of learning were lost--and only bits of it were recovered, often via the Arabs, as Europe finally began to pull out of this incredibly horrible era.

Say what you will about the Romans, they acknowledged the "plebians" as a rightful political force--a dramatic advance in human organization that is with us to this day, partly because the Romans spread it so far and wide and were so influential. (It made the leap from circa 1 A.D. to circa 1776 on the other side of the world.) Of course it wasn't perfect--nor even perfect as an ideal--but the notion of the "balance of power" within a society, with everyone having a say, is critically important to modern government. Conditions in the farming areas were terrible, it's true, with the brutalist kind of slavery a common evil. And I certainly wouldn't defend the brutal imperial wars--the application of the Romans' talent for organization to warfare and imperial conquest--but they did, indeed, have a better notion of, at first, republican, and then, imperial rule than any other conquerors in history, and it included RESPECT for the religions and cultures of conquered areas, the RIGHT of the "plebians" to have a say in their own affairs, and the SOCIAL MOBILITY of all classes including urban slaves.

The Romans also acknowledged, revered and encouraged learning. Literacy was widespread in all economic classes during the long Pagan Roman era--a benefit that was utterly lost with the collapse of the Empire. The Church eventually accumulated libraries but they were NOT available to most people and they were heavily censored and bowdlerized even among the Church clerical class. Public education--widespread in the Pagan Rome world--vanished for nearly 15 centuries.

ALL of this was lost--the notion of the "plebians" having rights, the notion of social mobility, the notion of SECULAR government, the notion of religious tolerance, the notion that there is an objective world that scientists, doctors, engineers, navigators and other knowledgeable, intelligent people can understand, the notion of free travel, the notion of cultural openness and exchange, the notion that there are things to be learned from others--all this and more was lost in the inevitable decline and fall of the unsustainable Roman system, with its ultimately fatal economic and political flaws. But it did last for 500 years, not because it was tyrannical but because it was beneficial.

Now, I am the first to say that smart, innovative feudal peasants and the lowest clerks in the Church (the copyists) saved western civilization during its ten centuries of vast ignorance and stark misery. They are a credit to the human race. There were some others in addition--the Freemasons (who preserved the engineering knowledge and skill that built the cathedrals, but were forced into secrecy because of the Church's dark suspicions of science and mathematics), the midwives and herbalists who preserved some medical and plant knowledge, at great peril of their lives, the Troubadours who kept the Goddess religion alive (also forced into secrecy and subterfuge), a couple of kings here and there who valued knowledge (and generally had to battle the Church to preserve and pursue it) and the odd teacher, philosopher or visionary who tried to shine a light under this dreadful "Iron Curtain" that had been drawn over human knowledge and the freedom of the human mind.

Credit most certainly belongs to these mostly "lowly" people or outcasts, who continued to think creatively in such difficult circumstances. But it does not do to denigrate the achievements of Roman civilization and the long lasting catastrophe that followed its collapse. Both things can be, and are, true.

One thing more I should add: The original inspiration of Christianity--that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ("love thy neighbor" because he or she is as human as you are)--while it atrophied for ten centuries and became the horrible opposite of itself, in the hands of truly evil, powermongering popes and bishops, DID eventually contribute an immensely significant NEW IDEA to western civilization--and one that the Roman Pagans only had a dim and partial idea of (the rights of the "plebians"--and also their general notion of social mobility, and cultural/religious tolerance). That idea: that we really and truly are born equal and have equal rights--that every person is both valuable and independent. The Church tied this to their bizarre ideas of God and the soul--but it persisted beyond their strange and twisted theology to become the linchpin of human progress.

We are very much on the point of losing that human equality to a new form of corporatism that hauntingly resembles the Church in the Middle Ages: Vast, transglobal business corporations--especially in the "first world" countries of the U.S. empire, and most especially in our own. We have only to look at our vote counting situation to understand this--now controlled by one, private, far rightwing connected corporation--ES&S, which bought out Diebold--using 'TRADE SECRET' programming code with virtually no audit/recount controls! The 9th century popes could not have devised a more diabolical scheme to control human affairs!

But there is a great movement afoot in Latin America to establish equality in that region--a movement that the U.S. and its corporate masters, of course, hate like the plague and are actively trying to destroy. But it is born of the legacy of the original Greek democracy, of the Roman Republic and the education aspects of the Roman Empire, of the Enlightenment that finally emerged from the long, bleak Medieval period, of U.S. democracy as it once was, of the U.S. "balance of power" republic, as it once was, of the egalitarian goals that our society once averred, and, finally, of Christian notions of equality and social justice. The great socialist and communist movements of the past are also influential--and Cuba, that rather astounding remnant of the communist era--is also influential (especially as to its provision of universal free health care and education). All of these many influences make the Latin American leftist democracy movement a strong, healthy, vital movement and probably unstoppable.

And possibly the most interesting part of it is its environmentalism. Two of the leftist democracy countries have now amended their constitutions to include the rights of Mother Nature! The leader of one of those--Evo Morales, the first Indigenous president of Bolivia, a coca leaf farmer, a peasant, leader of the coca leaf farmers union--is the one who has stood up most courageously, in world forums, and demanded action on climate change.

As our empire spins out of control--with four wars in progress, additional wars no doubt in the planning stages, and increasing poverty and enervation (boring culture) here--the inspiration for the future--the ideas and energy needed to restore our planet and further human progress--may well come from somewhere else.

In Michael Pollan's book, "The Botany of Desire," he discusses how Peruvian peasant farmers prevented potato plague, on their farm lands, that hit Ireland with such devastating consequences, when ONE variety of potato was imported to Ireland and the starving masses became dependent on it. The Peruvians plant MANY varieties of potato--thus, if a disease strikes one, they have many others to rely on. A simple lesson that applies everywhere and to everything. A SCIENTIFIC lesson, from very intelligent people, who probably couldn't read, but were great observers and passers along of knowledge. And a POLITICAL lesson, from the same. VARIETY is the key to life, to learning and to progress. It is the key to human happiness. And monomaniacal systems--whether it's the pope or a corporate cabal of billionaire fatcats or a "Caesar" imposing them on others--WILL decay and collapse and fall--quite possibly, in our case now--that of humanity and our biosphere--forever.

Maybe one part of the solution to saving our planet will rise in Latin America, out of this vibrant tumult that is demanding equality. Maybe the technology to implement the terraforming that we must do, here and elsewhere, will arise somewhere else (China? Japan?), and the two will come together--respect for Pachama and knowledge of her ways combined with high tech energy conversion--via something started here (by the Pentagon!): the Internet. And maybe some innovation by a child benefiting from the Chavez government's provision of computers to every schoolchild will help spread new forms of entertainment and happiness that are more satisfying to the human soul than consumerism.

We shouldn't be pro- or anti-technology--just as we shouldn't deny the contributions of the Roman Empire--or the U.S. empire--to civilization. We need a bigger view--of history and of present reality, and of our imaginings of the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-01-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
33. Actually giant cities are probably the only sustainable solution
Giant cities with high population densities and good mass transport means less energy wasted on transportation, transmission loses, heating, cooling, etc. Giant cities also mean a small ecological footprint. It is suburban and rural populations that are unsustainable, not city populations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-28-11 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Doing what we're doing now is the Michelle Bachmann-level crazy stuff
Here's what you're calling crazy:

getting 100% of your energy from solar and wave energy
building a city that is 1/3rd of a mile across - so you can walk to and from anywhere
...no cars needed, no pollution

Not stated in the OP but I envision the city to be as close to 100% self-sufficient as possible.
Plenty of green space to grow veggies and fruits, plenty of fish in the sea
...unless you park off the coast of America (where you'll haul in poisonous Mercury-filled fish thanks to the hundreds of coal power plants)


Where's the crazy part???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. They made a movie about this: "WaterWorld" starring Kevin Costner
"In a future where the polar ice caps have melted and most of Earth is underwater, a mutated mariner fights starvation and outlaw "smokers," and reluctantly helps a woman and a young girl try to find dry land."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114898/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld

It was a pretty good movie, it's like Mad Max on sailboats and is probably a more accurate depiction of what life would be like for these "boat people" refugees.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. What if we don't actually have a "problem" that needs a "solution"?
Edited on Sun May-29-11 12:50 PM by GliderGuider
It's equally possible to say that we simply have a situation that's going to evolve over time, and each of us will contribute in some small way to that evolution.

Thinking of our current situation in terms of problems and solutions gives the (mistaken, IMO) impression that there is some end-state we are working toward, and that humans are in control of the process. Instead, I think we are involved in an unfolding process with no particular beginning (except for the Big Bang, perhaps) and no foreseeable end. We play our part based on our perceptions of the current situation and our abilities, and however the situation develops as a result becomes the new state in that moment.

I am absolutely sure that the whole interactive {physical{chemical{biological{human{cultural}}}}} system is too large and complex for humans to comprehend, predict and control. That means that we are limited to an iterative process: (tinker with some portion of it, examine the outcome, decide what direction to go next, re-tinker). Aiming for "solutions" is a natural human tendency, but a lot of Greek tragedies have been written around that theme.

Some possible evolutions of our current situation can be interpreted as negative, and some as positive - in the end they will be a bit of each depending on who and what is impacted, and how, and who is making the judgement.

It seems to me that the best we can do is muddle on based on our understanding of the local situation - pretty much like we have done for the last 100,000 years. Of course that's not a satisfying answer to the unease so many of us feel right now. Our moral sense tells us that we broke it, so we have to fix it. But what if it's not actually broken, and what if there's nothing to fix? Would that free up our moral energy for more productive uses in the pageant of life?

Edited to add: Giant floating cities certainly aren't my idea of a good time, but if others think they will be a useful addition to the human overrunning of the planetary surface, by all means have at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chillspike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
15. We can't even agree to go fully green on land
Edited on Sun May-29-11 12:37 PM by chillspike
what makes you think if we just add water it will work?

It has to be done individually. YOU, ME, EVERYONE has to decide on our own we are going to be eco-friendly inhabitants of this earth and do it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-29-11 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
20. Oh that sounds like a pleasant environment to spend the rest of your life in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Thanks, it's nice to hear a positive comment
If you want more info on the floating city concept, direct from the architect:
http://vincent.callebaut.org/page1-img-lilypad.html

It's a little artsy but it looks to me like a wonderful place to live, raise kids, etc.

From the link above, (I think the architect is French so hopefully this makes sense):
"The double skin is made of polyester fibres covered by a layer of titanium dioxide (TiO2) like an anatase which by reacting to the ultraviolet rays enable to absorb the atmospheric pollution by photocatalytic effect. Entirely autosufficient, Lilypad takes up the four main challenges launched by the OECD in March 2008: climate, biodiversity, water and health. It reached a positive energetic balance with zero carbone emission by the integration of all the renewable energies (solar, thermal and photovoltaic energies, wind energy, hydraulic, tidal power station, osmotic energies, phytopurification, biomass) producing thus durably more energy that it consumes! True biotope entirely recyclable, this floating Ecopolis tends thus towards the positive eco-accountancy of the building in the oceanic ecosystems by producing and softening itself the oxygen and the electricity, by recycling the CO2 and the waste, by purifying and softening biologically the used waters and by integrating ecological niches, aquaculture fields and biotic corridors on and under its body to meet its own food needs."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Someguyinjapan Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
21. Are you still peddling this crap?
Edited on Mon May-30-11 04:32 AM by Someguyinjapan
I am thoroughly convinced you don't believe a word of this and are doing it for a laugh, having been substantially disproven by some of the very sources you cited to support this idiotic proposal the first time around. Do I have to go back and destroy you again with your own words?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. There is another possibility
His objective is to promote nuclear power by trying to make those who endorse renewable energy look like fools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. See posts 12, 30, 24 and (especially) 20
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Someguyinjapan Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. I'll buy that
It's a hell of a lot more plausible than the nonsense he's been spewing about these floating cities the past few weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
23. Wonder who would live on them, rich people or poor people?
j/k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Hmmm. 21st century prison ships?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. That is *not* where I want the rich to live
If there is an ounce of justice left in the world, eventually the CEOs and the wealthy will live here:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/skinnykidnw4pdx/5732471332/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-30-11 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. How does this "solve" climate change?
This seems about as plausible as colonizing Mars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Implausible?
Semantically you are correct. Maybe that should be "adapting to climate change" rather than "a solution to."

Check out the first link in the OP. How plausible is it that Shell Oil will build a 1/3 mile long oil rig that also liquefies natural gas? Yet that is what they are doing. This is an amazingly complex sea platform with miles of pipes, valves, pumps, processing equipment, pressure sensors, etc. The OP simply takes that complexity and removes it in favor of a larger living area, enough for 50,000 people to live and work.

The cost works out to be $200,000 per apartment - a whole lot less than in most cities worldwide to live in a "green" community that is 100% carbon neutral, recycles its own waste, and is powered 100% by renewable energy.

You cannot compare living in this floating eco-city to some tract home in the middle of nowhere, where your air conditioning bill will be higher than your mortgage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Why do you need to make false claims about the "cost per apartment"?
That cost is for the Shell vessel, not the 50,000 person "lilypad". No wonder you support nuclear power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-31-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. False claims: why do you need to throw that accusation around about everything and everyone?
For a fossil fuels proponent such as yourself you sure are ignorant of how complex those drilling rigs are. The Shell drilling rig linked to in the OP will also liquefy the natural gas that comes up with the oil and pump that off into separate LNG tankers. It's a "two-fer" as your hero Dubya might say.

For about the hundredth time I ask you to go back to that link, look at the picture very carefully and think again about the complexity of that Shell oil + LNG rig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-02-11 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
34. A robot that welds steel beams and columns + a robot that smooths concrete floors
Two examples of robots that may serve as the basis for how robots could build the floating city.

1) Robot that welds steel columns and welds steel beams

2) Robot that smooths a concrete floor

http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=7542

Then, here's a scary humanoid robot that is supposed to be dancing but looks more like The Governator.
http://www.youtube.com/user/cmurobotics?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/2WKt_TMeAyg

The robot follows pre-programmed actions based on a camera capture system that copies a human's motions. I am only including it here as food for thought: if you can capture the human motion then why can't you control the robot in real time using the same camera system. The robot's on the sea floor building the (eventually) floating city while the worker is in Kansas City or Phoenix. Kinda like an Xbox Kinect but with more nerds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC