It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cities: Demons... or Saviors?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
really what we need to do is stop eating meat as a species....if we all become vegetarians we would be able to feed the population a lot easier and with a lot less resources and at the same time reduce a huge amount of pollution




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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.

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.


Haven't you seen the proliferation of videos and stories of people who are lying there on the street dying and everyone just walks right by them without stopping to help?





So, do you want to rethink your statement about how help is only a doorway away? If learning to live with other people means simply learning how to ignore them when they need you, then what does it matter if we're so far away from our neighbors or right next door to them? Clearly, it doesn't seem to matter much either way.
edit on 8-3-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
really what we need to do is stop eating meat as a species....if we all become vegetarians we would be able to feed the population a lot easier and with a lot less resources and at the same time reduce a huge amount of pollution


Or, we could learn to eat insect protein.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

ketsuko

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
really what we need to do is stop eating meat as a species....if we all become vegetarians we would be able to feed the population a lot easier and with a lot less resources and at the same time reduce a huge amount of pollution


Or, we could learn to eat insect protein.





this is true...although no palatable for many....

i remember watching a show years ago about people in some 3rd world country somewhere where they were making burgers out of flies....kinda gross but more beneficial nutritionally than the meat paddies we use here in western countries,women would sit there all day pulling the wings of the flies and and mashing em up to make the paddies



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Please why has no one checked this persons math!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20acres = 0.080937km²



Not 96.2km²!


There is plenty of land and as others have stated there are far more efficient ways of growing food. Some grow all there food needs off less then 1 acre sustainable. Non the less, your math is way off, your intention is good but you can't build a premise off bad math!



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



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
farms don't have to be 20 acres.
see what can be grown on just 1/10 of a acre.
they won't allow pictures, or written material reproduced.here is a link
Urban Homestead

youtube link and description


Over 6,000 pounds of food per year, on 1/10 acre located just 15 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. The Dervaes family grows over 400 species of plants, 4,300 pounds of vegetable food, 900 chicken and 1,000 duck eggs, 25 lbs of honey, plus seasonal fruits throughout the year.



so just imagine what you could do on say just one acre.




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



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   

hopenotfeariswhatweneed

ketsuko

hopenotfeariswhatweneed
really what we need to do is stop eating meat as a species....if we all become vegetarians we would be able to feed the population a lot easier and with a lot less resources and at the same time reduce a huge amount of pollution


Or, we could learn to eat insect protein.





this is true...although no palatable for many....

i remember watching a show years ago about people in some 3rd world country somewhere where they were making burgers out of flies....kinda gross but more beneficial nutritionally than the meat paddies we use here in western countries,women would sit there all day pulling the wings of the flies and and mashing em up to make the paddies


Only because it's not in our culture. There are plenty of places where various kinds of grubs and larvae are still part of your evening meal, not to mention grasshopper, crickets, cockroaches, and others. They're economical and quick to grow and actually pretty healthy. If it really came right down to it, they are a viable source of protein, and I'd far rather learn to eat bugs than go vegetarian.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


You might like this idea.




Mega-City Pyramid is a giant pyramid made out of giant, floating skyscrapers. It would be 14 times taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza. It would be all held together by transport tubes that would take people from one skyscraper to the next.

The Mega-City pyramid has been designed to be made in Tokyo Bay, Japan. It will house 750,000 people. It was designed as a way of solving Tokyo’s huge population and lack of space. The Pyramid has also been designed to let strong winds pass through it’s structure, and it will also be able to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis.

People will have everything they need in the pyramid, they will even be able to work in one of the many offices that will offer around 800,00 people jobs. Each house will source its own power from the wind and sun.

It is said that the Mega-City Pyramid will be built by 2110.


source (one of many)






posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Destinyone
How do you propose to get supplies in a city, when all access to supplies (food water) have been closed down?


Why do we have to assume that cities can't develop their own supplies? Why couldn't there be agricultural towers right inside the city, as they are already doing all over the world:





www.verticalfarm.com...



reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed
 


Indeed


edit on 9-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   

snypwsd
reply to post by starheart
 



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?



Absolutely. These calculations were only demos, to show how much less damage we will do to Earth. But of course, we can downsize everything, and even build on water. And when we will be able to colonize planets, we will be even better. All these towers were indeed, as you said, showcase. You show the biggest thing possible you can do, and then, work around it and make it better.

The 2.2% is how much space we will take off from the habitable land surface of Earth (111,485,250 Km2). The 1.6% is how much we will take off from Earth's entire land surface (148,647,000 Km2). Because there's some parts of Earth that we still can't live on yet, such as mountains (Himalayas, Rocky Mountains, Alps), swamps, instable islands, etc.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


Putting notions of revolutionary farming methods mentioned in this thread aside, you do still realise that cities or not, most of the land surface of the planet that is not city is farm right now don't you? Farmland is steadily growing and if our population continues to grow, we will use every little bit of land we can.

Human nature being what it is, we'll only look at these new practises once e realise that we're about to starve. Cities are nothing more than cockroach nests for humanity.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LaHaver
 



Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Please why has no one checked this persons math!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20acres = 0.080937km²



Not 96.2km²!


Ummm... no.

Wikipedia:


One acre comprises 4,840 square yards or 43,560 square feet.


1,000 yard is about 1 Km. Now, 1 acre is 4,000 square yard. Which means, 4 Km2. 4 Km2 x 20 acres = 80 Km2. Now, with the numbers after the first 4, it gives: 4.840 x 20 = 96.8. Or 96.2, depending on which type of acre you use.

Your calculations (0.080937 Km2 for 20 acres) means that 1 acre is 4 square yard, which is only 1000 times smaller than a real acre.
edit on 9-3-2014 by starheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dumbass
 



You might like this idea.

Mega-City Pyramid is a giant pyramid made out of giant, floating skyscrapers. It would be 14 times taller than the Great Pyramid of Giza. It would be all held together by transport tubes that would take people from one skyscraper to the next.

The Mega-City pyramid has been designed to be made in Tokyo Bay, Japan. It will house 750,000 people. It was designed as a way of solving Tokyo’s huge population and lack of space. The Pyramid has also been designed to let strong winds pass through it’s structure, and it will also be able to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis.

People will have everything they need in the pyramid, they will even be able to work in one of the many offices that will offer around 800,00 people jobs. Each house will source its own power from the wind and sun.

It is said that the Mega-City Pyramid will be built by 2110.


That is incredibly awesome! A pyramidal dome that will protect and support the skyscrapers inside! On water, which is even better! It's not really hard to know what they'll do on Mars, or any low-atmosphere planet. Close with glass the pyramid sides, and you've got a self-contained haven.
Not only that, but alot less damage will fall on this type of design. any projectile or wind that destroys this design will first hit the sides of the pyramid. If one of the 4 sides is broken, the other three still protect the skyscrapers inside. Only after the entire pyramid falls the skyscrapers are in danger. But by that time, people had time to evacuate.

Genius! Star for me, and thanks for the link! If I could, I would give you 5 more stars! We need designs like these for our future. Too bad it's only for 2110...



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

LaHaver
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Please why has no one checked this persons math!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20acres = 0.080937km²


Good thing we check yours.

According to your math, my bathroom is 2.25 acres large.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by starheart
 


What I think is the most important of the design is that they can house 750.000 to a million people in there AND can have 800.000 to a million workplaces. The infrastructure is integrated in the structure of the design and due to its form it is a 3 dimensional grid. Totally different then our know grid that connects highrise only at floor and subway level. Because of the openness of the piramide the houses are provided by fresh air and weather something that adds to the quality of living. As said in the article the houses are provided by energy by using wind and sunlight. I can only imagen the inner transport system would use a similar thing. Now if they place vertical farms inside it could become a selfsuffiecient megabuilding.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Good food for thought. Where are all the wild animals live? Are there going to be any left?

I wonder what the Mennonites would think about this?

This idea needs more thinking before it becomes a reality. It would change the definition of freedom and liberty for sure.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:07 PM
link   

markosity1973
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.


We tried that in the 1970's. Glasgow in Scotland demolished all the ghetto tenement blocks (outdoor toilets), and replaced them with around 1000 high-rise apartment blocks surrounded by farmland and gardens. It only took a few bored teenagers with mental health problems to completely devastate the area. They did things like elevator surfing (which broke them), jumping down the waste disposal chutes, burning rubbish in the surrounding gardens, playing loud music, holding extremely noisy parties, mugging other tenants in the hallways and breaking into an apartment when the owner was out working. Animals in the neighboring fields were teased and poisoned. They'd do everything from trying to see how many people could ride a horse at the same time to arranging dog fights.

Sometimes the builders themselves didn't construct the properties correctly. Tenants suffered problem with humidity, damp and mold because there was either continental windows (open air slats), or double-glazing and no ventilation. Neighbors also objected to the construction of high-rise apartment blocks because they lost the sunlight to their gardens as well as their privacy and security. Having a high-rise block also gave tenants a birds-eye view of which low-rise properties were vacant, so that encouraged squatters and burglaries.

In the end these properties had to be demolished and replaced with low-rise building. Some people are just not civilized enough to live in high-density units.


edit on 9-3-2014 by stormcell because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Dumbass
 



What I think is the most important of the design is that they can house 750.000 to a million people in there AND can have 800.000 to a million workplaces. The infrastructure is integrated in the structure of the design and due to its form it is a 3 dimensional grid. Totally different then our know grid that connects highrise only at floor and subway level. Because of the openness of the piramide the houses are provided by fresh air and weather something that adds to the quality of living. As said in the article the houses are provided by energy by using wind and sunlight. I can only imagen the inner transport system would use a similar thing. Now if they place vertical farms inside it could become a selfsuffiecient megabuilding.


We definitively need more megabuilding like these. Great find!


If I could, I would push the design two step further, since the city is on water:
- by connecting the highrises with "bridges", at perhaps each 10 stories, and on these "bridges" would be 100% parks, places to relax, with bushes, small trees, purely aesthetically gardens. Malls would've been great, but due to higher risk of bridges falling, it would be wiser to only put parks. The reason for parks in-between the highrises would be that the highrises serves completely for housing, working places, malls, and farms, and aren't filled up with less urgent utilities. And when people want to relax, they just take the lift to reach each 10 stories, and enter the bridges to relax and interact with workers of other highrises.
- finally, the base of the city should be like Venise. Only water, so A): you can use personal boats to go somewhere instead of pollutants cars, and B): have a quick getaway from the city into the ocean if it gets damaged. Not only that, but flooding won't affect the city, since people will already travel on water, instead of the sea flooding the highways and stalling cars, both electric and gas, like modern cities.

What do you think?
edit on 12-3-2014 by starheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bitsforbytes
 



Good food for thought. Where are all the wild animals live? Are there going to be any left?


Of course there would be wild animals left. In fact, once humans all live together instead of spread across the entire land, animals will have 98% of Earth's entire surface to live upon. Even if we take, say, 20% of Earth's surface, to transform into parks, gardens, aquaponics, etc, there'll still be 80% left for animals. There will be no more animal extinction (man-made extinction, mind you, for natural evolution will still exist), no more destroyed ecosystems. It will be the dream of every environmentalist!


I wonder what the Mennonites would think about this?


If I am correct, Mennonites are the Amish, right?
We can't decide for them, but... They should look at the numbers, and decide for themselves.
Ideally, if they would like to stay in farms, they should be allowed; anyway, I think they'll finally have the place with 98% of Earth virgin.
At the same time, anyone who is sociopath and sociophobe could pretend to be Amish and they wouldn't need to live in cities; and one day, if alot of people does that, we'll go back at humans spreading across the land and taking up alot of space, and we're back at what's happening now.
That will be something people will have to discuss together, being critical to both the survival of humanity, but also to the survival and protection of nature.
Anyway, many Amish are open to technological idea. True they ban TVs, and own horses, and live a more simple and technological-free life, but many are open to ideas such as technological treatments that could eradicate diseases, or some ideas/technologies that would permits humanity to solve urgent problems. I'm pretty sure if they see the numbers between a complete farming population and it takes 10 Earths, or megacities population taking only 3% of Earth, they'll make either a decision, or a pretty good compromise.
Again, that is something people will need to discuss with them.


This idea needs more thinking before it becomes a reality. It would change the definition of freedom and liberty for sure.


Indeed. Discussion and meetings would be most elementary in taking this decision. And it's what I hope we could begin to do, even in ATS. Things will need to be sacrified, others will need to be adjusted.
For example, almost everyone would need to live in cities if we want to give a chance to Earth to heal itself up and grow back. But almost everyone is either scared or hateful of cities. If we would follow their decision, humanity would spread across Earth, and we'll take 10 of it just to house everyone. But at the same time, we can't force them to live in cities and free up 97% of Earth.

We need to open discussion and debates, and solve all problems and misunderstanding. Numbers must be shown, and a demo city should be built to test and fine-tune this idea even more.
Not only that, but the technology and knowledge necessary for building those towers and cities would have to be available for any common citizen, so that it's not greedy corporations that have control of those cities, but truly the people.
It will not be available soon, but nothing stops us from making a couple of first steps, such as eliminating the fear of cities and people, and figuring out what each parties need.
It will be long and tedious, but if it means that we could house 10 billions people and save Earth from them at the same time, it will be worth it.
edit on 12-3-2014 by starheart because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



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.


I believe that the only problem with excavating underground is that it could significaly weaken the continental crust, especially if done in a global scale. I believe it could perhaps work with only 5 stories, a bit like the usual skyscrapers, or like the CERN, but more than that would be more dangerous to Earth's structural integrity.


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


Exactly. Again, it requires cities. 20 acres farms are difficult to put in orbit or on water, not to mention that other planets might be smaller than Earth and with as much unhabitable land, which means that we'll have to learn to live in a more compact format if we don't want that only a select few live on those small planets.


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


I fear that too. Still too many people are afraid of cities, a fear reinforced with media and movies always demonizing cities; but with our level of population, it's the only way, that it is floating cities, skyscrapers cities, pyramid cities, orbital cities.

As for population control... there's a too much fine line between voluntary population control and eugenism, that not many people would agree.
Beside, population control shouldn't be necessary. How many babies we want is our right, and we have the technology to shelter every single living being, even up to 10 billions, without ever damaging Earth, if only people could agree to it.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join