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: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Sometimes I just get the feeling that I deliberately want to insult people, like I do now. Overpopulation not a problem because all 6.5 billion people fit into 75% of Australia's landmass? Sure, go ahead and think that way but do not expect intelligent people to go with you very much.

That is to say that there would be only one single factor that is taken into account when considering wether a population can sustain itself or not. Some particular variables that are taken into account are pollution, fish, crops, meat, vegetables (food in general, you get the picture), size of polulation, age structure (both current and statistically foreseen), daily products, production efficiency, emloyment with increasing efficiency and so on.

Where did that deny ignorance go into? I would like people to actually deny their own particular ignorance just to have them to take into account what should be taken into account when considering wether we have too much population or not.

Sure, we could and do produce enough food for everybody. As of now, although 3 billion people are missing most of the neccessities that we take for granted. It is a distribution problem but that won't really change the evolutionary pyramid model we live in. That model is in our hierarchial behaviour patterns and is not going to go away anytime soon.

Anyway, there is only a certain amount of land available for farming, and there is only certain amount of fish that you can take out from sea so that it will replenish itself. When we go over those limits, there will be problems to feed the people. This much is obvious to anybody who actually takes five minutes of his time to think this situation.

Also, when we have more population, we have to produce more daily goods and other products. This is obvious. That will mean an increase to pollution, which is again obvious. We have technologies that reduce pollution but it is just impossible to get rid of pollution alltogether. It piles up all the time. Here too we have a certain limit that our planet earth is able to handle. When we get over this limit, we have problems. And again, size of population largely determins what this number is.

And so on and so on. This is an incredibly complex issue actually, and some people want to take just one single variable into account? Gee..




posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Over population is a real problem. However it is one that is almost impossible to solve without going out and forcing a child limit on everyone in Africa and India. Or we could go with the more popular approach and just kill a couple of billion people. Seriously though overpopulation is a very serious problem and although these cities may help in terms of land space they won't in terms of resources.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 


Well, it read as though you agreed with me. But if you didnt than I guess we can just disagree. The entire point of building a city on water, I thought, was to solve the population problem and alternative energy problem. Everyone knows there is more water than there is land.

Im pretty sure if you put the worlds population to fit on 75% of australia, australia would be destroyed. Atleast 75% of australia would be completely obliterated. Im not sure if I believe that anyway.

I think pollution, consumption and population are problems to us and our planet. Maybe Im wrong, but theres really not a whole lot a can do about it either way.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Wisen Heimer]



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wisen Heimer
reply to post by rawsom
 

Well, it read as though you agreed with me. But if you didnt than I guess we can just disagree. The entire point of building a city on water, I thought, was to solve the population problem and alternative energy problem. Everyone knows there is more water than there is land.


Sure, it solves some problems but problem with population really are resources and food. Those are finite in nature.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 


Food problems? That can be solved VERY easily. Genetics and massive breedings of animals and fruits.

Land problems? You can build MANY skyscrapers that can each hold THOUSANDS of people. You can build cities on the ocean or below the ocean.

You are mistaken and this is complete common sense.

India is about a third of the U.S in land size and has FOUR times the population.

So on that fact alone, the U.S. should be able to have a population of 12 Billion without any problem. This figure is about twice the population of the earth now, and this is ONLY the U.S. land being taken into account.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 


You do know food and resources are unlimited on earth right?

Resources can easily be changed for example:

They use to make money out of hemp and trees.

Sea shells use to be a form of money, etc. So the money is no problem.

As for food like I said before genetics and breeding places can take care of that.

I read somewhere that for every human there's about 2-5 million fish. I'm pretty sure you get the idea here.

Resources? Ok if you want to build houses out of trees, then you use trees. If there's not enough trees (there's A LOT) you then use bricks, mud, etc.

No problem.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Cauch1
 


You are simply mistaken.

The idea of over population and scarcity of resources is a myth and a lie.

They tell people that, so that people adopt a scarcity mindset and live in poverty.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
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..


Studies have shown the entire population of the earth can be fit into the county that Jacksonville Florida is in.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
Food problems? That can be solved VERY easily. Genetics and massive breedings of animals and fruits.

There is then the problem of destroying the ecosystem that took hundreds of millions of years to develop. We have no idea what the effect of manipulating genetics on the scale you recommend would be. If those altered genes were to spread into wild species it could quite easily destroy the world's ecosystems.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Cauch1
 


Are you kidding me?

Genetics have been used to breed animals for thousands of years. It was via animal breedings.

They have been using the technology of genetics for over 50 years already with the new technology that they have.

It would NOT damage the ecosystem and that's a myth.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I do not mean to insult people, but are some of you actually insane? Sea shells as money? You are trolling, right? I'm not going to argue with that and just take it as trolling.

Some of you should really read a bit about what it causes when a lot of resources are taken from some single place. Also, there is not enough fish in the oceans for everybody, if we think about fish that is used for food that is. Hauls of fish have been on decline for decades, and populations of fish are provenly a LOT smaller than before. If this amount of fishing continues, populations of fish fall too small.

I agree that there are no land problems what comes to building houses to people, I never argued there were.

Nobody has actually proven my previous posts wrong as of yet.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rawsom
 


I've said it countless times that food would not be a problem period.

There's an infinite supply of food, so we will never run out.

It's just a myth indoctrinated for the masses to brainwash them.

"Oh there's not enough food for all of us." ~Lies



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
Genetics have been used to breed animals for thousands of years. It was via animal breedings.

Bravo genius *slowclapping*. You are so clever that I think I will quit now and let you do all the work.
Purlease. Yes of course I know that we have been selectively breeding animals for thousands of years in order to keep and increase favoured characteristics. To suggest that I don't is insulting. However this is an entirely different area. This isn't about lets see what the product looks like if we leave these two animals alone together for a while. What you are suggesting is to breed animals and plants with new genes in them with no idea how that will effect the environment around them. Ever heard of pollen? Allows different plants to breed. Carries DNA on the wind. *talking-slowly* Do you get the hint? Your suggestion is the genetic equivalent of pandoras box.

Oh and then there is...


Originally posted by bobbylove321
You do know food and resources are unlimited on earth right?

Pardon me? Where are you living because I think I may just emigrate there. As you definitely are not living on my earth. Have you read or watched or listened to the news over the past few years. You know the problem about how we are running out of resources thing. If food and resources were unlimited then we would have no problems. There would be no starving, global warming, etc. We could just work our way around them. At least half of the problems in the world are due to lack of resources and you are claiming that we have an unlimited amount.

Followed by....


Originally posted by bobbylove321
They use to make money out of hemp and trees.

Sea shells use to be a form of money, etc. So the money is no problem.

So you are saying that when we run out of money while building say for example these floating cities and the builders ask for their pay we should go down the beach gather up some shells and give them to them. Or give them bits of wood instead. They used to be a form of money. They aren't any more. Therefore they are now only worth the amount of a shiny shell, a couple of pennies. Honestly what are you thinking. Do you really believe that we can substitute and support our currencies with shells. I just can't see the working populace taking that very well.

And finally we have...


Originally posted by bobbylove321
I read somewhere that for every human there's about 2-5 million fish. I'm pretty sure you get the idea here.

OK you do realise that that isn't actually a very large amount. Not when you count the number of species that there are each of which need a high enough population to continue to reproduce and maintain a stable gene pool. And then there are those we can't eat because they are poisonous. And those we can't eat because they are endangered. And those we can't reach because they live so far below the surface. So yeh. You go man. Go on and solve the world's problems with fish.

Dude keep posting this is the easiest ripping I have done in years.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
reply to post by rawsom
 


I've said it countless times that food would not be a problem period.

There's an infinite supply of food, so we will never run out.

It's just a myth indoctrinated for the masses to brainwash them.

"Oh there's not enough food for all of us." ~Lies


So how exactly you define infinite? Say we have a billion acres of farmland, how is that infinite to you? At which point you simply run out of farmable land on earth? Do you ever read the news or watch any documentaries about these subjects? You realize that such claims are made by economists and bankers, not by billogists or other scientists, right?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:36 AM
link   
It's clear that the opposition to this thread are clearly brainwashed.

How's food not abundant?

Fish ALONE outnumber us 2-5 million PER person.

Cows ALONE outnumber us 10,000-50,000 PER person.

Those are just two sources of food. There's many others. You have fruits, vegetables, etc.

The problems in this world are NOT from a lack of resources and food. It's from the LIE that we don't have enough food.

This LIE helps the companies such as Monsanto to come in and control the food supply because people don't know how to take care of "over-population" and that the companies need to "help" us out.

The concept of the "lack" of food is the EXACT same concept of the "lack" of diamonds.

Have you heard of diamond frauds? It's where they tell you this is rare and there's only so and so left in this world, when in reality right below you in their vault they have 1 million of that exact same diamond.

Food is scarce...Get out of here.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Cauch1
 


For the sea shells USE to be a form of currency..

Read what I wrote...USE to be a form of currency.

In other words hundreds of years ago. The point is that money is fake, and so it's only the value we give it.

Tomorrow they can come out and say every foot of fabric is $10. They can make ANYTHING worth value aka money.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
It's clear that the opposition to this thread are clearly brainwashed.

How's food not abundant?

Fish ALONE outnumber us 2-5 million PER person.

You didn't read any of previous comments about food supply for fish and gene pool, did you?



Cows ALONE outnumber us 10,000-50,000 PER person.

This is just outrageous claim. Where are those 10 000 * 6,5 billion cows? You do realize this is ten thousand times more than current population of earth, right?



Those are just two sources of food. There's many others. You have fruits, vegetables, etc.

Those take farmland space, which is limited.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
Cows ALONE outnumber us 10,000-50,000 PER person.

I actually went and checked this fact. It is estimated that there are 1.3 billion cattle in the world today. That makes it 1/5, not 10 000 - 50 000/1. That math is simple enough.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobbylove321
reply to post by Cauch1
 


For the sea shells USE to be a form of currency..

Read what I wrote...USE to be a form of currency.

In other words hundreds of years ago. The point is that money is fake, and so it's only the value we give it.

Tomorrow they can come out and say every foot of fabric is $10. They can make ANYTHING worth value aka money.


One that is terrible English it should be used not use and I did notice the in the first post. Secondly do you have any idea what you are talking about in terms of money. You can't just make money. You can't just bring more money into the system if you run out of money and have bills to pay. If you do that it will cause strong inflation and quite possibly hyperinflation like in Zimbabwe and Weimar Germany (read your history if you do not know the second). So ultimately you will have made the situation worse. So please something intelligent and also nothing on shells fish and legions of cows.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Going back to the initial subject of the OP.

For anyone interrested in the technical aspect of a city built on the sea, I propose to you a research that appeared in The Journal of Ocean Technology Jul-Aug-Sep, 2008.


MOBILE OFFSHORE BASE – ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-CONNECTED
SEMISUBMERSIBLE STRUCTURE
Subrata K. Chakrabarti1
1 Offshore Structure Analysis, Inc.,13613 Capista Dr., Plainfield, IL 60544 E-mail: Chakrab@aol.com

ABSTRACT
The Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) is a long floating structure composed of multiple modules. Adjacent modules within
the MOB are attached to one another using hinged mechanical connectors allowing a continuous platform. The design
was proposed for use by the US Navy as an offshore base that can be transported and set up in any ocean. Since the
MOB concept is unique in its size, its design tools were developed as part of this project. These tools can provide
responses of the individual modules and connectors within the MOB subjected to varying ocean wave conditions. In
order to verify the design tools, a small scale model test of a generic MOB concept of semisubmersible type was
carried out in a wave basin. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the fluid structure interaction among neighbouring
floating structures and to analyze the response of an MOB composed of semisubmersible modules. Numerical results
from the design tools are provided to show the importance of multi-body interaction to the MOB concept. Correlation of
the numerical results with the measured data is made. The results will potentially be useful to the study of the
interaction of very large multi-module floaters with waves.

From: www.journalofoceantechnology.com...

Very technical, but interesting. One of the main difficulty in this seem to be the connection of the different parts relating to the stress of material due to the action and movement of the waves.

Salute



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join