Your anology sounds very much like left and right in politics, where's there is really an up and down too!. Ok, so left means more freedom, and right means more restriction.
But they probably both play into the same system (one dimensional). But I beleive the line can be teased out of it's rutt, or in this analogy, you could use a very powerful magnet to shift the particles of graphite the line is made of. otherways would be folding the line in half, which would be equivalent to an extreme crisis that would FORCE the line in another direction.
Yet another approach would be to start drawing circles and other shapes all around the line... so the line was able to move freely, into these other awarenesses, and this is where I'm coming from, lead by example. Cudos for the explanation of your analogy, as it's not always easy to explain a "vision".
One way of visualizing the city would be to set up a piece of plywood or use a desk then cut out pieces of paper to represent the various elements of the city. Where would dwellings go, how large would the vertical farms be (based on population), where and what shape are the lakes and waterways, how and where would energy be generated, etc.
Since we are already seeing the adverse effects of climate change I don't think traditional farming should be part of the picture. By the time you get the city built the likelihood of monumental floods followed by a decades long drought then more huge floods will be far greater. Paraguay already has the flood/drought cycle in some areas (wikipedia). This should be taken seriously from the initial planning stages as well.
That would be cool if someone had the tools, materials, space, and time to build such things; this reminds me of hobbyists who build large model railroad structures.
Originally Posted by WorldCitizenUSA
I think using online resources such as Google Sketch would be much faster & easier - the tools, materials, and space wouldn't be needed.
Absolutely, Paraguay has the largest underwater reservoir in the world, plus a lot of rain (which we should make the most of). Though I agree that traditional farming isn't the best idea, greenhouse gases caused by us is a myth, used to imposed carbon tax. We generate a minute about of CO2 compared to many other living (and non-living) entities on this planet.
Paraguay suffers drought in areas it's hard for infrastructure to take the water to, and bad resource management, this would be a self contained community, (with regards to basic necesities) and would store water from the rain. There are drought issues almost everywhere (atleast water shortages anyway, due to polution), my main reasoning was the lack of limitations...
I agree with neil about the models.
There is a city currently under construction outside of Porto, Portugal called PlanIT Valley. It will utilize over 100 million sensors. If you review these articles you can get a better sense of what is going on:
PlanIT Valley - The New Smart City in Portugal!
1 City, 100 million sensors
PlanIT Valley – the benchmark for future cities and sustainable urban communities
While it will obviously function within the current economic framework it is certainly one of the most progressive urban planning projects around, which incorporates many elements of what is envisioned for a future city within a RBEM.
Honestly, I think it is admirable to want to build a "test city," but I think it is very idealistic and largely impractical to organize from the grassroots level. The level of commitment, funding and expertise required is immense. I do not mean to be cynical, and by no means am I trying to convince anyone to stop trying to realize their goals. I am only suggesting that perhaps there are more constructive methods to realize a new economy. Education of course, but perhaps creating a startup business in PlanIT Valley is something more viable. A Peer-to-peer (P2P) business which could manufacture a sustainable, long-lasting product in one run, dismantle, then re-invest its capital in retrofitting the business to do something else. Say, in agriculture, energy or other areas of the economy. P2P businesses can compete asymmetrically with for-profit companies. They aren't the end goal of course. I am not ignoring the ecological problems inherent to the current global economy, and the toll it takes on human well-being. But these types of ideas can certainly aid in the transition, while utilizing a city which will already be constructed, so they are much more practical than starting from scratch, at the grassroots level.
According to published scientific research, global non-anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million metric tonnes per year. Global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 in 2010 were 35 billion tonnes. Human greenhouse gas emissions also include millions of tonnes of methane and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of nitrous oxide per year, both of which have even greater climate change potential than CO2. So we emit many, many times more GHG's than natural sources.
Originally Posted by freeUsAll
In order to keep these comments on topic, I will say that regulating greenhouse gas emissions during the construction and operation of our future cities is of significant importance. Our emissions disrupt the natural carbon cycle, which is responsible for climate conditions which are conducive to human and other biological life.
Actually one of the things I was thinking about was using the outer test city (b) to set up a coal-burning power station and distributing the exhaust to greenhouses; this would take care of things either way. I myself am skeptical of human-caused global warming or climate change, or that it's even a bad thing, but we ought to look for a technical solution rather than a tax regardless, plus there's still other forms of pollution to deal with anyways. If there's any toxic substances in the exhaust, filters or srubbers (whatever you want to call them) can be used before it makes its way to the greenhouses.
Originally Posted by Jim Morton
Coal contains many toxic substances including the radioactive elements Uranium and Thorium so, yes you definitely would need to filter and scrub a LOT. You might want to look for more benign sources of CO2 such as fermenting compost piles (also a great source of heat) for the vertical farms.
Originally Posted by Neil
That would have absolutely no beneficial effect on plant growth. It is one thing to be skeptical, and another thing entirely to be scientifically illiterate. I don't mean that as an insult.
Originally Posted by Neil
Photosynthetic Inhibition After Long-Term Exposure to Elevated Levels of Carbon Dioxide
Temperature Dependance of Growth, Development and Photosynthesis in Maize Under Elevated CO2 (PDF)
Food For Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
Grassland Response to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2
Insects Will Feast, Plants Will Suffer: Ancient Leaves Show Effects of Global Warming
Insects Take a Bigger Bite Out of Plants in a Higher Carbon Dioxide World
Not to mention how dangerous burning coal is for the air quality, how challenging it would be to produce safe exhaust, that coal is non-renewable, and any implementation of filtration would drastically reduce the energy-returned on energy-invested (EROEI) ratio. Plus, depending on where you were to do this I guess, it would probably be against the law, and would not pass any review from engineering and safety unions.
In order to move forward with a test city you have to overcome so many challenges. Funding, securing land, building permits, designing plans that obey local laws, codes and regulations, contracting labour, dealing with unions, etc. Organizing a P2P company that embodies RBE ideals, within an existing framework such as the PlanIT Valley, would be a viable strategy which would have considerably less challenges than building an entire city from scratch.
Last edited by Jim Morton; 02-27-2013 at 06:29 AM.
Tags for this Thread