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 Built On Water

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
They are saying that we can most likely start building cities on top of water within 3 years.

www.cnn.com...

I'm not surprised, and like I've been saying these technologies and "science fiction" ideas have been with us the whole time. They are very real and it goes to show the skeptics out there that think life is a 9-5 routine forever that THIS WORLD IS in fact fake and an illusion.

Anything is possible.

Not to mention also to the "earth is over populated" people that statement is a myth.




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Kind of interesting, reminds me of the Venus Project: www.thevenusproject.com

I wonder what their motive behind doing this besides experimentation "with different forms of governments"?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
not sure if it means anything, or if its even related. but downtown providence r.i. is one very large bridge over a river, and i think its actually the largest or widest bridge in existence.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I read an article on this several months ago I will try to re-find the link. But I do believe that floating cities could easy become a reality, big problem though is that they would be such an obvious target for terrorism. The chance to kill an entire city at once would not be passed up on.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
This is one of the articles I have read but not the original. Did not expect to find a link so quickly will try to find other.
environmentuk.msn.com



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
New Orleans could use that; instead they'll probably just rebuild themselves into a bowl.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
It's hard to imagine getting the funds together to actually build the first one.

I think that would be very expensive.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Hard to get funds?

It's very easy. After all the Federal Reserve has STOLEN TRILLIONS of dollars over the past few decades.

They can pretty much fund everything.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I posted an article about this on the Worldview blog. I have a number of pictures that people may be interested in.

Here is the link: Worldview



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
mhmm see I am a bit confused. Are these communities going to be built close to coastlines are they creating free standing "Hawaii'" type deals in the middle of the ocean? That would be eerie



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Have we run outta land ?
I just dont see the need .



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This reminds me of an old thread:

Amphibious Houses - The Answer To Flooding


Seems like it could be a good idea.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I really hope the Venus project or something like this actually takes off. And I dont think over population is a myth there.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Wisen Heimer
 


There's no such thing as over population.

Scientists, economists, etc. have found out that if you took all 6.5 billion plus people in this world, you can put them all in Australia and they would EACH be able to have a decent sized lawn with a house, and there still would be 25% of Australia left.

The people who are trying to say the world's over populated are also promoting population reduction, which is what "they" want us to believe.

And let us all be logical for a second. Look at India.

It is smaller than America and yet holds almost 4 times the population. Now wouldn't you think the U.S. (by itself) can hold around 3 billion if not more? Hmm..



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
yeah well look at China and Japan. Population is increasing expontentially and its only a matter of time before the amount of people is beyond Earths capacity. Plus more population equals more pollution, more waste, more destruction of the natural world and more consumption of natural recourses. I think you are kidding yourself if you dont see how this may be a serious problem.

This over population thing is a means to avoid what is waiting for us in our future. We want to reduce population now before it gets too late. Your suggesting that we dont even worry about it intill its too late. The point is to try and fix this problem before it gets way out of hand and millions of people, plants and animals have to die.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Wisen Heimer]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Great idea !

I would be the first to sign up !

But it is not without technical difficulties. The sea can be a very dangerous place. It the choice of place would be crucial. I have a few offshore platform capsizing image that come to mind. I know a few friends who went to work offshore on the platforms of Hibernia, the safety training there are pretty extensive. Think for a second what would happen if a structure of that size capsized ...

The cost should not be so much of a problem ... they would surely sell out expensive houses before beginning building it, like they did for Burj Dubai or for the Palms ... thinking of it know ... I wouldn't be surprised if Dubai would try that first

But the idea of trying different government type is great ... but wouldn't they have to place it outside of the territorial waters ? Off the continental shelf ? I'm not sure the government would like to have a place just offshore where you are out of their reach.

Well, that would be great for my line of work ...

Salute ... see you all on the high seas



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wisen Heimer
 


If by matter of time you mean hundreds of years, then yes.

Over population is not going to get worse in 10 or 20 years. There's NOTHING to solve.

If the population grows, then you build lots of skyscrapers. If there's lots of pollution you change to alternative fuel and energy.

The world's solutions are VERY easy to solve.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Would a city on the water be better than one that might work better underwater? It would certainly be one of the better ways to deal with those hurricanes and the people underneath the waves wouldn't have to worry about tornadoes or the like; then again they won't get as much sunlight either.

Personally I'd be to scared to move out onto one of those cities. If it started to sink and I'm not close enough to a major land mass or even an island I start to freak out. So good idea, but sadly not one city I would like to move to.
. I'll just wait for the Jetson type of cities to appear.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bobbylove321
 


Its not that simple and why do you think these people want to start building cities on the ocean? Over population?



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I think one of the main problems of this sort of city would be security on the lower levels. If you knew what you were doing you could sink the city. Billions lost in value and thousands of lives as well. Also another question would be whether you would be able to get people to live on them. There would be a lot of people unwilling to live on a city with the potential to sink.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join