Architecture - Save Humanity

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   
With studying architecture for the last five years, and having a moral conscious in the back of my mind of wanting to “save the world” and perhaps understanding the reason to life, I would like to pursue a career which provokes these ideas in my chosen field.

In this day and age we live in, I find that architecture is beginning a new movement which can be categorised under topics such as speculative architecture, advanced architecture (computational), bio-architecture (creating, supporting and enhancing life and living systems). However, the down side to this movement is that it is still very new, and no the economy does not provoke this kind of field. There are small studio’s, and a few larger blogging sites such as Inhabitat, that really motivate me to follow this path because I find that it is important for our race to evolve in this field for survival instincts. This kind of architecture would provoke the idea of designing architecture by looking closer to nature, such as swarm intelligence for example, and using the properties of swarm intelligence to perhaps predict climatic events that would propose threat to society. Or by looking at how plants structures grow, to then understand how structural supports can adapt for buildings to provoke sustainability. These are two of many examples.

I guess I came here to seek answers to find out if anyone is perusing the same line of interest? Or if anyone has read any articles or heard of any architectural studio’s which have explored this area.

Also does anyone have opinions on how architecture might be a solution for solving the great mysteries of the world or to one day maybe save humanity. (Not being rude, but please no pyramid discussions unless relevant)
edit on 1-4-2014 by yeahibelieve because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahibelieve
 


What are you thinking of that you left out of the opening post?

What would architecture save the world from?

Why do you think architecture will help you understand the reason to life?

I get the impression you're leaving out a lot of your thoughts.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahibelieve
 


Check out Palo Soleri's Arcosanti

www.arcosanti.org...

Great ideas slowly taking tangible shape in AZ.

I love visiting the place and seeing the progress.

I think it's funny that most of it has been built on selling bells and wind chimes.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I'd like to build a clay house for myself in 1 day to make it more obvious that the system automatically finds the worker who works the longest for the lowest pay, thereby even though its not required to work all day maximizing the work time and leaving people jobless / creating useless jobs

Sadly it's illegal here to have anything except a standardized 500k+ $ house.

Openly living without doors, houses openings all turned in one direction with like 50 unconditionally loving people would be fun


The pros about clay houses are that you can jump against a wall or fall without being hurt and nature will just wash them away if you don't use them.
Con: you still need some wood or other material if you want multiple levels
edit on 1-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

yeahibelieve
Also does anyone have opinions on how architecture might be a solution for solving the great mysteries of the world or to one day maybe save humanity.


I do.

Tower farming:



These towers diminishes the surface which normal farms would cover, thus we could stop cutting down forests; we would have more crops per area, and a few of these towers could actually make a town (or even a small city) self-sustainable.


edit on 1-4-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


I dunno, that would block the sunlight of a lot of space and replacing land with tower layers? Thats like covering a whole countrys ground with strong, stable material plus extra mechanics.
Better just stop having more than 2 children in average instead.

It would also cause the plants to have less sunlight, because it's sometimes blocked, thereby making the plants even unhealthier than they are today.
edit on 1-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

oneoneone
reply to post by swanne
 


I dunno, that would block the sunlight of a lot of space

You mean light inside the tower? Not a problem. In Canada, the sun is rarely perfectly vertical - it always shine at an angle, which means the stories separations don't cast a shadow on the plants. The shadow is casted away from the plants. In countries with a more vertical sun, just use mirrors. Even glass is pretty reflective. You could even use these mirrors to focus heat and generate electricity.

To irrigate, you wouldn't need to use planes - since the areas are vertical, a good irrigation can be achieved using basic plumbing. You'd save on gas since you wouldn't need the planes or all of these irrigation equipment. Less gas consumption, less CO2 emission.

These towers would convert CO2 back into natural oxygen (because of photosynthesis). It would be perfect for cities.


edit on 1-4-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


I mean that the sunlight which the tower gets for the plants throws a shadow next to the the tower, up to as large as the saved amount of land - if its less, then the plants would rather have less sunlight than normally, making them more unhealthy.
What you can save is the light that falls below plants if you wouldn't have earth under them, the light falling to another plant - but roots are large and even earth absorbs sunlight in various ways - for example by small insects that you don't see.
I think thats not worth the costs.

The shadow moves to different land if its just one tower, but the disadvantage still comes.
On the other hand you can't assign a space as non livable, because a shadow is casted on it, because the shadow moves with the sun position.

In nature normally those plants and animals that use CO2, if it exists in that way of relevance, would replicate more and balance it.
edit on 1-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by oneoneone
 


But then... should we continue cutting down forests just to make place for more "conventional" (but hundred times larger) farms?

I live in Quebec, and each years I see thousands of acres of conventional farms, thousands of acres of forest which is no more. This has an impact on nature. All this deforestation could be slowed down (if not stopped) only if we would find a way to make farms vertical instead of horizontal. Tower farms seem like the best option for now.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Legit, pointing to overpopulation again.

More farms are required for more people.
Those in control to decide (media, politicians, the people behind politicians, investors) if we can get those towers are also in control to decide how many children people have.
Building towers is way less profitable, so it would be a law as well.
In the end the shadows are either casted on people, trees or plants that will have a more painful average feeling in life and become more likely sick or die (dying is the least i care about)


Those pro hemp people often claim that these plants would be way more efficient for paper than using trees and would solve the problem of chopping down trees. It was also used as paper in the past until laws forbid it.

I also wonder about the efficiency of absorbing sunlight / converting CO2 to O2 (if true) in comparison between plants and trees.
Most plants do have a high coverage not letting anything through to the ground
edit on 1-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join