Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are "destroying" the natural environment so should they be prevented?
To some extent yes, the rain forest should be left alone. the natural habits of endangered species, should be protected.
The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th Century explorer who was the first European to transverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels far exceeding even those of today.
This civilization was decimated by exposure to European diseases, and the jungle reclaimed the farmlands as well as the cities and roads.
However, this disputes the "purist" claim that the rain forest ecosystem must be preserved as is. The indigenous peoples of the 16th century Amazon were quite adept at biological engineering (see: terra preta), and their farming would be viewed as incompatible with "environmental green think".
In short, environmental protection (i.e., status quo) is suicidal and contrary to reason. We need environmental multiplication / expansion, via engineering.
"Thickening" the life bearing volume of the planet should be job #1.
To illustrate habitat multiplication, consider a simple thought experiment:
Take an area measured at ten acres, and you have ten acres of life supporting surface area. Now, build a 100 story building on that site. Instead of ten acres of surface area, you have 1000 acres of surface area (not counting the vertical surfaces - which may be used).
I stipulate that current architects and customers restrict that surface area to human habitat, but there is no reason why it must be so restricted. Let our intrepid "Green" Architects reserve 20% of the surface area for wildlife habitat. Thus we have the wildlife habitat surface area approaching 200 acres, where once only 10 acres were available.
How?
Make open terraces that ring the building, accessible by helical ramps. In essence, it's a man made mountain. A city composed of such "Green-scrapers" might annoy those who love glass and concrete, but I think you'll admit that engineering can produce solutions that are better than static preservation of habitat.
It takes very little imagination to extend that multiplication to all lifeforms and habitats. Imagine building recommendations ( not authoritarian codes) that encourage builders to designate large portions of surface area for wildlife habitat or agricultural uses. Imagine every flat topped skyscraper with garden greenery. Imagine building exteriors composed of trellises, vine supports, balconies and alcoves, supporting tons of soil and providing access to wildlife. It's reasonable and proper to plan habitat for humans, but let's incorporate nonhumans into the mix.
To illustrate the potential, imagine a nation that "improves" 1% of its land, by multistory multiplication, to house its total population. It has just enabled the preservation of 99% of the remainder. And if that multistory multiplication includes wildlife habitat, not only has man preserved, but has increased the life bearing surface for all life.
That is profound.
Mother nature can't take 100 acres and transform it into 10,000 acres (or more) of life bearing surface. Only men, by harnessing science, technology, intellect, and our collective cooperation can do it.
This generation and those to come, have to welcome the billions and billions of descendants, and prepare a place for them.
We have to stop teaching "environmental status quo" and begin imagining environmental multiplication via engineering. The planet's surface is NOT the limiting factor.
All the contradictory laws, rules and regulations must be scrapped, tossed away, and replaced with the sound doctrine that we have to think for the benefit of the seventh generation to come, and each succeeding generation to do likewise.
Every discipline, science and art should be focused on "thickening" the life bearing surface of our homeworld. Visionaries must help paint the pictures for those who lack the imagination.
How big would a city be, to house 100 million people?
How much surface area to support their transport?
Their food production?
If we assume a megalopolis of 50 people per acre (each person is allotted 30 ft x 30 ft), then we need 2000000 acres. If we require the same for agriculture, that's another 2 million acres. Four million acres translates to 6250 square miles, or roughly 79 miles by 79 miles. Or if you like a circular city, 89 miles in diameter.
Now, let us engineer a 50 story volume to hold the same surface area.
Four million acres / 50 = 80,000 acres (125 square miles)
That's only an area, 11 x 11 miles!
How about 100 stories?
Four million acres / 100 = 40,000 acres (62.5 square miles)
Roughly 8 miles x 8 miles could provide the surface area for 100
million people.
Change whatever parameters you wish. Give more surface area to agriculture, to wildlife habitat, to replica landscapes, to whatever pursuits you deem necessary for your pursuit of happiness. Run the numbers. Each time you will see that the only sane solution is for mankind to deliberately change the environment to support more and more and more lifeforms. Environmental protection of the status quo is suicide. Multiplication of environment is the solution.
Once you envision that magnificent possibility, you will no longer mourn the past nor fear the future.
What may be a fascinating study - determining the characteristics of an "ideal" high population density environment.
It does indeed sound interesting but whatever the results, I am sure I would not want to live there at this late stage in my life. I have lived and worked in several major American cities but I am now retired to an area of west Texas that has only 36 persons per square mile. I have to drive 3/4 of a mile to my nearest neighbor and ten miles for a cell phone signal. For this battle-hardened Beltway warrior, this is pretty close to an ideal population density.
A lot of considerations would go into a study as you suggest, some of which would be easy enough to calculate. From my perspective, this study would have to take into account the age of that population. When I was younger I was willing to live shoulder to shoulder with my neighbors. However, age tends to remove one's patience with others and add barbs to wit. Neither characteristic is desirable for a culture where humans hope live in close quarters. Now that would certainly be a politically incorrect conclusion to a research study wouldn't it? Euthanize anyone over forty?
[quote=jetgraphics;8561783]The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th Century explorer who was the first European to transverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels far exceeding even those of today.
This civilization was decimated by exposure to European diseases, and the jungle reclaimed the farmlands as well as the cities and roads."
Yes but you ignore the fact that there was a lot less polution, to deal with. The rain forest is the most adept at removing carbon dioxcide, and cleaning the air. Not to mention the thousands of species of animals and plants that have yet to be discovered, along with thier potential health benefits.
There is a vast difference between working with the land, and natural resources, and manipulating the land to do what you want. YEs you can pack millions of people into small spaces, but not everyone wants to look at buildings instead of grass and trees.
Again just because we can do something does mean that we should.
The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th Century explorer who was the first European to transverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels far exceeding even those of today.
This civilization was decimated by exposure to European diseases, and the jungle reclaimed the farmlands as well as the cities and roads."
Yes but you ignore the fact that there was a lot less polution, to deal with. The rain forest is the most adept at removing [1] carbon dioxcide, and cleaning the air. Not to mention the thousands of species of animals and plants that have yet to be discovered, along with thier potential health benefits.
[2] There is a vast difference between working with the land, and natural resources, and manipulating the land to do what you want. YEs you can pack millions of people into [3] small spaces, but not [4] everyone wants to look at buildings instead of grass and trees.
Again just because we can do something does mean that we should.
[1] I realize you are one of the Carbonites, but you should be aware that the major contributor of CO2 is the ocean, as in warm water outgassing CO2. (Like warm soda losing its fizz...)
The infamous chart that shows CO2 and temperature increase is cleverly separated so as to hide the fact that CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature, not precedes it. If CO2 was the cause of warming, it would precede the rise.
Again, this is evidence of the widespread propaganda associated with the "Global Warming" hysteria.
Remember, water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas - but since no one has figured out a way to tax steam or regulate evaporation, it's not getting the same press.
But I digress.
[2] If you re-read what was posted, it states that life bearing volume would be increased by engineering. Furthermore, there is no "working the land" that does not involve CHANGING its original state. Even plowing "destroys" the microhabitat of weeds, insects, and small mammals. It may irritate your "green" nerves, but terraced mountains, plowed fields, rice paddies, and aquaculture ponds are all "destroyers" of natural habitat. Please tell those folks to go starve, so that you can "restore" the environment, and you will prove my point that "environmental preservation is suicide / genocide".
[3] Your assumption of "packing millions into small spaces" is contrary to what was posted. If one multiplies the life bearing surface area, then one is not "packing in" but allowing for more surface area of habitat per lifeform. And as an added benefit - as surface area increases, the planetary mean temperature would decrease. In short, human technology is the solution, not the problem.
[4] Blame architects, bankers and politicians that crafted the framework that prevents or inhibits "greenscrapers" and other multilevel habitats from being used as zoos, parks, and farms.
For a "green" high population density solution, see: ring_life : Ring Life
Atmospheric data:
The Earth's atmosphere (or air) is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
H2O = 1%
CO2 = 0.038%
Guess which gas has a more profound affect on climate and weather?
It does indeed sound interesting but whatever the results, I am sure I would not want to live there at this late stage in my life. I have lived and worked in several major American cities but I am now retired to an area of west Texas that has only 36 persons per square mile. I have to [1] drive 3/4 of a mile to my nearest neighbor and ten miles for a cell phone signal. For this battle-hardened Beltway warrior, this is pretty close to an ideal population density.
A lot of considerations would go into a study as you suggest, some of which would be easy enough to calculate. From my perspective, this study would have to take into account the age of that population. When I was younger I was willing to live [2] shoulder to shoulder with my neighbors. However, age tends to remove one's patience with others and add barbs to wit. Neither characteristic is desirable for a culture where humans hope live in close quarters. Now that would certainly be a politically incorrect conclusion to a research study wouldn't it? Euthanize anyone over forty?
[1] If / when petroleum is too expensive (or unavailable) and you can't drive, nor are delivered goods and services inexpensive, would you then prefer to be in an environment with more neighbors, and close proximity to your necessities?
I would.
[2] "Shoulder to shoulder" irritation is probably the result of "standard building practices" (inertia, politics and greed). A high population density environment can be engineered and built to isolate intrusive sound, scent, and sight.
Excluding the "American model" of isolated family farms, most of the world's agrarian societies tend to congregate in villages, and farmers travel to their fields. Since this model has a pedigree that spans millennia, while the U.S.A. is barely approaching 234 years, there's some basis to consider the merits of consolidation of population.
Extrapolating on the decline of petroleum, and the affects on transportation, I foresee that electrified railroads will become the dominant land transport.
Cities and towns that are along mainline tracks may enjoy economic benefits from the transition to 'Lectric Rail. And areas that are not served by rail, may become isolated and impoverished.
In light of the population doubling every 40 - 50 years (2 generations), thinking ahead to the 7th generation (140 years) would necessitate planning for 3 doublings. (21 billions?)
So environmental engineering to support those billions will necessitate an expansion of agricultural production, consolidation of population, transition from the "highway" to the "railway" (more efficient, and compact), and frugal efficiency in all aspects.
Jet, there is a great deal of merit to what you say. I would question, though, the mass transit system. Rail allows zero flexibility. If there is a train in the track, nothing else moves. Whereas a local bus can pull over the the side and let the express pass. In undeveloped agrarian areas, the transport distance of field workers from their village is quite small, and ever shifting according to the fields that are being worked. It would be inefficient to lock transport infrastructure into place so it couldn't be easily re-adapted to changing priorities.
I think three doublings of our present 7 billion would be 14, then 28, then 56 billion.
I would question, though, the mass transit system. Rail allows zero flexibility. If there is a train in the track, nothing else moves.
Whereas a local bus can pull over the the side and let the express pass.
A single rail would represent a bottleneck.
A robust mass transit system should have at least 4 rails: 2 express - 2 local (like NYC). However, a single track with sidings is often sufficient, in many instances.
If one was given the task to build a rail system for a megacity of the future, I'd seek to install 4 track subways, for express service. And then use a trolley bus / streetcar (electric powered) for full coverage, local service mass transit.
(* overhead power wires may offer an alternative power source for electric / hybrid vehicles, extending battery range. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
In undeveloped agrarian areas, the transport distance of field workers from their village is quite small, and ever shifting according to the fields that are being worked. It would be inefficient to lock transport infrastructure into place so it couldn't be easily re-adapted to changing priorities.
A mass transit (tram) network might not be cost effective in an agrarian community. However, a village may be part of an interurban rail network, linked with other communities.
The rail network is to provide lowest cost transportation... moving the most people or cargo for the least consumption of fuel / energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I think three doublings of our present 7 billion would be 14, then 28, then 56 billion.
My fudge factor battery went dead...
forgot to write "... an additional 21 billion"
It is my firm beleif that nature will take care of our population problem. A kind of check and balance system that most of us don't know about. An example would be if you put a bunch of rats in a cage that is too small, they start resorting to homosexuality, canabalism, murder and other acts of attrition. Think about it and make a choice.
Ok let me simplify this. The earth is not over populated. Due to the size of it and the mass of it we are still fine. But lets just say for arguments sake that it is overpopulated, then what? Do we kill the second born son of the emperor? Do we go to the poorest part of Africa and say "Sorry the earth has to many people we need to kill your children" What would you do if we were overpopulated? I beleve for every person born a person dies. So what is your solution?
The planet is a closed system. It has it's own pre-set limits as to how many people it can support and in what fashion it can support them. If we venture beyond these thresholds, population dies off rather quickly.
I believe we are coming close to world population leveling out and possibly even heading back downwards. Many factors here: Industrialization of the 2nd and 3rd world, energy shortages (possibly catastraphic unless new technologies emerge in a timely enough fashion), water shortages (the entire planet's population would die within a matter of weeks in the absence of water), widespread famine, and of course, disease and war.
In summary, you wont have to kill anybody. the Earth will wreak as much havoc and kill as much as it wants if we push our luck too far with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
