Cities: Demons... or Saviors?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
This thread is about how cities would be a thousand time (literally) better for humanity than millions of farms.
Now, now, hold your horses, I know how much people starts to hate cities, and want to move to a farm. That is allright, but with 7 billions of people and climbing, farms aren't the answer to shelter all that number.
And yes, if humans don't want to witness a global genocide, people will have to learn to live together. Because frankly, there's no other way but cities, if humanity wants to live without witnessing his neighbour get killed in the name of overpopulation, AND, if he wants to leave nature alone and not destroy it furthermore.
And my friends, I have made the calculations for you. It is only through visual proof that we find what alternative makes more damage, and this is exactly what I've provided for you.

Here's some elementary numbers that we will use throughout this thread:



A fourth of Earth's entire land surface has to go, because it's the superficies of mountains, swamps, and other inhabitable land.


Now... farm living.
The following numbers are to demonstrate how much of Earth's surface farming will take, if everyone leaves cities and decide to live in a farm, such as promoted by environmentalists and media.

- A typical farm is 20 acres, or 96.2 Km² (or again, 290,400 square feet, or 96,800 square meter). So, basic number #1: 96.2 Km² for a typical farm of 20 acres.

- A typical farm must host at least 4 peoples, which is enough to run a farm of 20 acres. So, basic number #2: 7 billions people divided by 4 = 1,750,000,000 farms.

So, let's calculate how much of Earth's surface will be taken for 1,750,000,000 farms.



Let's compare it to Earth's habitable land surface...



Then, let's compare the same number, but with Earth's entire land surface:



The end result?
If all humans would move in a farm, they will take 1520% of Earth's habitable land, and 1140% of Earth entire land.
They would need 10 Earth to shelter them all.

AND, one a side note, you have to chop down all the trees if you want a farm. Which means, humans will have to chop down the Amazonian forest, the African jungles, everything. Which means, no more ecosystems, so more oxygen, no more carbon traps, only endless farms.

Not really the best solution to shelter 7 billions people, right? I agree.
And we all don't want a global genocide, right? We don't want to live with the fact that to save Earth, we had to kill 6 billions people, right? I agree.


So, allow me to present the solution:

Cities made of towers.

Scary, right? And yet, it will save Earth. It will save the forests, it will save 7 billions people, and it doesn't need 10 Earth to do so. In fact, it only needs 2,2% of our own Earth.
So... Let's begin again, shall we? Let's begin with the new generations of towers. Towers like this one:



- A tower of 300x300 feet wide, and 1500 feet tall. The land surface is 90,000 square feet (300x300), or 30 Km². So, basic number #1, 30 Km², or 90,000 square feet.

- Basic number #2: Each room of the towers are 1600 square feet, which is the size of a typical middle-class house.

- Basic number #3: Each 1600 square feet room/house will shelter only 1 person, instead of 4 per farm in the farming calculations.


So, calculation #1: How many 1600 square feet rooms/houses can a Freedom-type tower shelter, which means how many people can it shelters...




In each Freedom-type towers, there's 84,375 people that can live in a middle-class size house.

Now, let's see how many Freedom-type towers it will take to shelter all 7 billions humans:



It will take 82,963 Freedom-type towers to shelter 7 billions people. That means 413 towers per country (82,963 towers/201 countries).
Let's see how much of Earth's surface those 82,963 towers will take:



Okay, let's see how much it will take of Earth's habitable land surface, now, with all 7 billions humans accounted for:



All 7 billions humans, all living in middle-class size house, will only take 2,2% of Earth's habitable land surface.
There's 97.2% left of virgin land.

Now, on Earth's entire land mass, 7 billions people take 1.6% of earth's ENTIRE land mass. There's still 98.4% of virgin land.
Now compare that to the 1520% that 1,750,000,000 farms would have taken, with 0.0001% of free virgin land.




But it's 2,2% is still too much, right? Let's try it with the next generation of towers, as safe as the Freedom tower, such as this one:



- A tower of 300x300 feet wide, and 2400 feet tall. The land surface is 90,000 square feet (300x300), or 30 Km². So, basic number #1, 30 Km², or 90,000 square feet.

- Basic number #2: Each room of the towers are 1600 square feet, which is the size of a typical middle-class house.

- Basic number #3: Each 1600 square feet room/house will shelter only 1 person, instead of 4 per farm in the farming calculations.


So, calculation #1: How many 1600 square feet rooms/houses can a Burj Khalifa-type tower shelter, which means how many people can it shelters...




In each Burj Khalifa-type towers, there's 135,000 people that can live in a middle-class size house.

Now, let's see how many Burj Khalifa-type towers it will take to shelter all 7 billions humans:



It will take 51,852 Burj Khalifa-type towers to shelter 7 billions people. That means 258 towers per country (51,852 towers/201 countries).
Let's see how much of Earth's surface those 51,852 towers will take:



Okay, let's see how much it will take of Earth's habitable land surface, now, with all 7 billions humans accounted for:



All 7 billions humans, all living in middle-class size house, will only take 1.4% of Earth's habitable land surface.
There's 98.6% left of virgin land.

Now, on Earth's entire land mass, 7 billions people take 1.04% of earth's ENTIRE land mass. There's still 98.9% of virgin land.
Now compare that to the 1520% that 1,750,000,000 farms would have taken, with 0.0001% of free virgin land.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Now, imagine when technology will have evolved to the point where they can make 1 kilometre high towers, just 200 meters taller than the Burj Khalifa. How many more people do you think we'll be able to shelter, without ever again having to destroy nature?

Oh wait… They actually have it! Let me present to you… Kingdom Tower:



Just for the fun of it, let's just see how much less land mass we'll take when these towers will be available.

- A tower of 300x300 feet wide, and 3000 feet tall. The land surface is 90,000 square feet (300x300), or 30 Km². So, basic number #1, 30 Km², or 90,000 square feet.

- Basic number #2: Each room of the towers are 1600 square feet, which is the size of a typical middle-class house.

- Basic number #3: Each 1600 square feet room/house will shelter only 1 person, instead of 4 per farm in the farming calculations.


So, calculation #1: How many 1600 square feet rooms/houses can a Kingdom-type tower shelter, which means how many people can it lodges...




In each Kingdom-type towers, there's 168,750 people that can live in a middle-class size house.

Now, let's see how many Kingdom-type towers it will take to lodge all 7 billions humans:



It will take 41,482 Kingdom-type towers to lodge 7 billions people. That means 207 towers per country (41,482 towers/201 countries).
Let's see how much of Earth's surface those 41,482 towers will take:



Okay, let's see how much it will take of Earth's habitable land surface, now, with all 7 billions humans accounted for:



All 7 billions humans, all living in middle-class size house, will only take 1.1% of Earth's habitable land surface.
There's 98.9% left of virgin land.

Now, on Earth's entire land mass, 7 billions people take 0.83% of earth's ENTIRE land mass. There's still 99.1% of virgin land.
Now compare that to the 1520% that 1,750,000,000 farms would have taken, with 0.0001% of free virgin land.






See? The last two examples, the Burj Khalifa and the Kingdom tower are only if we want to go to the full extent.

Because even with towers the height of Freedom Tower, we will take 1.6% of Earth ENTIRE land mass. And that is if there's only 1 person in every single house. Now, you can triple that number to account for the malls and for bigger houses, and you still take only 5% of Earth's land mass!


And you know what's the greatest thing with that system, unlike everyone living on scattered farms? Is that even if humanity climbs to 10 billions, we will still take less than 10% of Earth's surface!
Yes, one day, it won't be enough, like when we'll reach 50 billions, but by then, we will have colonized Mars and other planets!



Humanity wants a way to survive AND to protect nature and Earth; towers are the way, not farms. If humanity doesn't want to murder 6.5 billions of people so that we don't take 10 Earth, everyone living on a farm is not the way. We need to get past sociophobia and technophobia, and we need to realize that we'll never survive if we go back to being scattered horizontally across the globe. We'll only survive and we'll only help the Earth survive, only by going to the sky.

The best part is? When people, such as those scared of heights will want to live on a farm, there'll be 97.2% of virgin land to do so.

There's only good points to live in cities instead of wasting land space. True, transports will have to be redesigned, but come on! Who doesn't love sci-fi movies and sci-fi cities, hmm?





Yes, it will ask for some adjustments and redesigning stuff to live in towers. But isn't that better than killing 6.5 billions of people and destroying Earth?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


Wow, seems like you really took the time to run the figures and present it in a complete thread. I can tell you've put alot of work here. ATS need more threads like this.

S&F from me.

Now imagine if we colonize other planets instead of wasting resources and warring against each others. Goodbye overpopulation - estimates show that the Solar System can support trillions.


edit on 8-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


As someone who has a seasonal booth at my local farmer's market, I disagree with your contention that cities are better.

I moved from San Francisco to a rural farming area, where I can have my herd of goats, and grow what I want on my land.

Cities are a concentrated easy target, and foster anti social disorders due to over crowding...

JMOHO...

Des



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Destinyone
Cities are a concentrated easy target, and foster anti social disorders due to over crowding...


I love most of your posts but here I'll have to disagree. I lived in Montreal for years, and it was great. Targets are more easy to acquire when you stand in an open field than when you're hiding in a city.

I don't think farms should be abolished, but I agree with Starheart - the demonization of cities and technophobia has gone a bit too far in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well, hello Agenda 21. The more we allow them to pack us into concentrated urban areas like so many rats in a cage, the more control over us they have.

Sorry, family has some land, and we will hold it to our last breath. Land is liberty. Cities foster tyranny.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 




The end result?
If all humans would move in a farm, they will take 1520% of Earth's habitable land, and 1140% of Earth entire land.
They would need 10 Earth to shelter them all.

You're right. We are living waaay beyond our means. Thats what cities have given us.

Now all we need is a good bureaucratic glitch.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
how does one say from the city in french?
de ville



Deville
Last name origins & meanings:
English (of Norman origin): habitational name from Déville in Seine-Maritime, France, probably named with Latin dei villa ‘settlement of (i.e. under the protection of) God’. This name was interpreted early on as a prepositional phrase de ville or de val and applied to dwellers in a town or valley (see Ville and Vale).
English: nickname from Middle English devyle, Old English dēofol ‘devil’ (Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos ‘slanderer’, ‘enemy’), referring to a mischievous youth or perhaps to someone who had acted the role of the Devil in a pageant or mystery play.
French: variant of Ville, with the preposition de.

genealogy.familyeducation.com...
edit on 8-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


ps i vote farms, cities stink and they suck...like factory farms
edit on 8-3-2014 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

ketsuko
Well, hello Agenda 21. The more we allow them to pack us into concentrated urban areas like so many rats in a cage, the more control over us they have.

Sorry, family has some land, and we will hold it to our last breath. Land is liberty. Cities foster tyranny.



In a farm, you're 96.2 Km2 away from any help. Someone shoots your family, and you can't call for help. If someone wants to kill you in a city, good luck, 'cause A): help is a door away, and B): you can hide amongst all others.

If we would be 500 millions people, I would agree that living in a farm would have advantage. But not because we will live in a city means there won't be any farming. We still need food, and those that love living in farms will be able to.

But we are 7 billions. You saw the calculations yourself. If each family of 4 lives in a farm, we will need 10 Earth, with no one square kilometre of forest left to shelter everyone.

So pray tell me: What is your alternative? Would you prefer destroying every single tree, on 10 Earth, or learn to live with other people, and leave 97% of Earth free of human's presence.

AGAIN, we will need farms anyway for those that hates cities.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

swanne

Destinyone
Cities are a concentrated easy target, and foster anti social disorders due to over crowding...


I love most of your posts but here I'll have to disagree. I lived in Montreal for years, and it was great. Targets are more easy to acquire when you stand in an open field than when you're hiding in a city.

I don't think farms should be abolished, but I agree with Starheart - the demonization of cities and technophobia has gone a bit too far in my opinion.


Hello Swanne.

Here we do disagree again. How do you propose to get supplies in a city, when all access to supplies (food water) have been closed down?

You don't. That's when you'll see the ugly nature in humans. I can think of nothing worse than a massive urban battle zone over providing for yourself and family. If something bad were to happen in our society where, even one weeks of all supply trucks to cities were cut off, it would be total chaos. Remember Katrina?

Again...jmoho...

Des

edit on 8-3-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   


Yes, it will ask for some adjustments and redesigning stuff to live in towers. But isn't that better than killing 6.5 billions of people and destroying Earth?


Seems to me a better adjustment would be some kind of voluntary population control. And no, I have no idea of how it could be done. Just an old lady's opinion.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


In a utopian society people would be limited to the amount of land they could own and LIVE on. We wouldn't have one person owning 30,000 acres of land. But, that is not how things work as it stands now.

Ideally, let the people who want to live on their farms and grow for themselves, do just that. Let the people dwellers who like the hustle and bustle of city living, do that.

I personally don't want to be crammed into small densely populated boxes, where I depend on outside forces to provide *everything* I require to live.

Des



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I understand the thought, to show case the possibilities.

It may need to happen someday, another option not considered, is all that square footage missed by not going downward, standard building is several city blocks, if you start building floors down, you could double the capacity going underground and with modern tech it would work.

But, it would take MASSIVE societal change,

Along with a Social and Communal view toward housing.

Things like Assigned housing would not go over well, and a Capitalist view could end up with the rich in the clouds and the poor in the basements.

It certainly is one solution, there are others, floating water cities, orbital colonies, actual colonies on planets, etc.

I fear though such change will come not from reasoned common sense, but from forced necessity as scarcity becomes a problem.

Population control is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as its done open and with education, as opposed to by force.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
In reality, there is plenty of room for small farms for everyone, and still lots land left over. With clean technology.

But, I prefer a small city myself, and don't like living in small communities without services, my arthritis hurts when I drive. Much of the time, going 60 km in 90 km zone, up the hill, due to pain of pushing down on the gas peddle.

I like small cities, with alot of farmland and orchards, vineyards, greenhouses, surrounding.

The ideal situation would be varied. ie. townhouses, not bare bones, with stairs, no lifts for elderly, no second bathroom downstairs, and some awful builder who snuck in and stole the insulation out after the inspection as is done in the Okanagan by a certain company.

Not millions of bylaws what you can do with your land, and tiny lots for homes, postage stamp.

Housing costs would be controlled, along with clean power and food. Like in Norway.

Eco farms, with 20 acre farms, 100 acre farms in some cases, and many homes, with ample yards around them, say 1/3-1/2 acre each, greenhouse in back, cottage for elderly or child.

Townhouses, 3-4 bedroom, 1 1/2 times the current, joined with greenhouses, huge back yards and front, privacy. Good soundproofing and lifts for elderly.

Things should be designed for people, for families, for both FORM AND FUNCTION.

And family farms with wonderful eco homes, producing their own clean energy in abundance, and aquaponics.

There is tons of land, all of humanity fit shoulder to shoulder in LA. There is clean energy.

All the problems that we have were solved already over the decades, even without bringing the real science out and the cavitation cold fusion energy out. Conventional clean energy. but we also need the real science brought out. I damn well want my beamship in my backyard, thank you very much. I don't like living in a box lied to when I do know what is there.

There is no reason to cut down trees in large numbers. HEMP LIME STONE HOMES. Sand bag, with hempstone coverings. Renewable wood flooring and for all sorts of items from guitars to looms, to decks, made out of HEMP/FLAX/BAMBOO compressed wood.

All the scarsity crapola is a lie.

Its abundance!

Ideally if I had my home in the city for my rather large family, it would be 3000 square feet including everything, no basement, lift to upstairs, and stairs, produce its own energy, have a back lane entrance and 1000 foot cottage for my mother, have 1/3 acre lots for lilacs, and forsythia and trumpet vine, and clematis, and grapes and a beautiful large greenhouse off to side with aquaponics.

One day i would be in the cottage and one my sons family in the house.
edit on 8-3-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
When I think of cities, this comes to mind:





And when I think of super high-rise towers, this comes to mind:






So I think I'll pass.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
High rise living yes.

Loads of said high rises crammed into concentrated spaces living far out of sync with nature, aka the cities of today; hell no.

Its always made me wonder why the small town model does not include high rise. i.e. why can't future living be small high rise town with say 10,000 people living in a square mile with at least 30 miles of farmland in every direction around it.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
But I don't even think they should be legally allowed to build skyscrapers, nor should anyone visit or work in them. they're dangerous, and not natural.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


At first I thought you were going to say something along the lines of the Venus Project but after reading your whole Thread it just sounds like Agenda 21.

I purpose an adjustment to your plan. Cut the size of the towers buy 75% that will increase the total land mass needed to 8.8%.
The reason why I say that is because if they are smaller then they will be able to build them faster, They could start building them NOW. Im pretty sure that a building over 2kms tall its not going to be that safe.

Like I said if you cut the size of the buildings by 75% this could actually be done within a reasonable time period. But If we do this then we would have to incorporate stuff from the Venus project for food and what not. but you do have something here, I enjoyed the read quite a bit.

One last thing... How did you jump from 2.2% down to 1.6% at the end there?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   

starheart
- A typical farm is 20 acres, or 96.2 Km² (or again, 290,400 square feet, or 96,800 square meter). So, basic number #1: 96.2 Km² for a typical farm of 20 acres.

- A typical farm must host at least 4 peoples, which is enough to run a farm of 20 acres. So, basic number #2: 7 billions people divided by 4 = 1,750,000,000 farms.



There's your mistake right there; you are assuming that you would only put in 4 people per 20 acres.

In reality one acre can feed 4 - 8 people. So, in fact 20 acres could support up to 160 people. Yep, you could build one small apartment block on 20 acres and it would feed them all.

With today's technology only one person would be needed to farm 20 acres. Heck, my dad had a 200 acre dairy farm that he ran by himself 90% of the time.

So, sorry but your math is a little screwy.
edit on 8-3-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Not only that, but all the housework, yardwork, growing food, not all really, but alot of it, can already be automated. There is no reason for the slavery and drudgery of this planet. NONE! We're way past the stage of jungle survival. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We can take ET home! I am not joking when i say want my own r2d2. This primitive box they force people in with plungers is fake beyond belief.


We Now Have the Technology to Take ET Home

Even on conventional we have abundance, but that is not even close to satisfying me. All the slavers are going to be cosmically arrested, narded is my short form of that. There are no willing slaves here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
No Matter What Your Politics, Why Is Anyone Living In Poverty?


Fishing in a phoenix earthship. Recycled tires and could be hempstone finish for me. While the water is all rain, and the electricity all solar/wind, I'd up that a bit, and rain is fukushima now! Recycle water, then its not scarsity either.

All the mining down, so much can be done by recycling, by plant resins, and even home grown quartz and crystals.

Aquaponics, they produced over 1 million pounds of produce and 10000 fish per year on 3 acres.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join