Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members"

Ehhh.

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it would want to treat its most vulnerable members."

Let's be realistic here, someplace like Indonesia can't just magically erase poverty and at the rate of climate change, developing countries that do want to elevate QoL can't even do so for the simple fact that 4 economic zones of the world have destroyed any capacity for them to be able to. It's not a question of whether civilization will collapse because of the rich, it's an argument that civilization is now impossible because of the rich.

Even if you took control of the financial means of biggest polluters and exploiters of humanity and resources out of the equation, it's still too late for the 95% of land only suitable for grazing and the people that rely on livestock in places like the Sudan.

What? Are we going to tell them that they can't have roads, and tractors, and additional desalination plants? Even if entirely publicly owned? It was too late by the time the American empire was a thing and rapidly not becoming a thing. It was too late by the time the British Empire was a thing. Arguably we had a shot by the time the Spanish Empire was rapidly folding up ... and we've now missed that by about 200 years.

It is precisely a question ofwhat exactly is left to salvage and who/what should we protect? Honestly at this time, I'm kind of fine just shooting the career political class andshifting to a democratic labour federation at this point. Assuming no one has any better idea beyond; "Consume until we die."

We're talking a very unique epoch of human habitation on this planet where the biggest killers on the planet will be heat stress... and that's assuming we even manage to lock down effective means to secure water and agriculture. Where the very environment on its own will be worse than being a pack a day smoker. A time where people will die simply going on a bit of a boozer and just not wake up because the alcohol has compromised their means to deal with the heat in massive swathes of the planet.

Those sorts of problems are not conducive to societies actively elevating the QoL of anyone.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members"

Ehhh.

"The true measure of any society can be found in how it would want to treat its most vulnerable members."

Let's be realistic here, someplace like Indonesia can't just magically erase poverty and at the rate of climate change, developing countries that do want to elevate QoL can't even do so for the simple fact that 4 economic zones of the world have destroyed any capacity for them to be able to. It's not a question of whether civilization will collapse because of the rich, it's an argument that civilization is now impossible because of the rich.

Even if you took control of the financial means of biggest polluters and exploiters of humanity and resources out of the equation, it's still too late for the 95% of land only suitable for grazing and the people that rely on livestock in places like the Sudan.

What? Are we going to tell them that they can't have roads, and tractors, and additional desalination plants? Even if entirely publicly owned? It was too late by the time the American empire was a thing and rapidly not becoming a thing. It was too late by the time the British Empire was a thing. Arguably we had a shot by the time the Spanish Empire was rapidly folding up ... and we've now missed that by about 200 years.

It is precisely a question ofwhat exactly is left to salvage and who/what should we protect? Honestly at this time, I'm kind of fine just shooting the career political class andshifting to a democratic labour federation at this point. Assuming no one has any better idea beyond; "Consume until we die."

We're talking a very unique epoch of human habitation on this planet where the biggest killers on the planet will be heat stress... and that's assuming we even manage to lock down effective means to secure water and agriculture. Where the very environment on its own will be worse than being a pack a day smoker. A time where people will die simply going on a bit of a boozer and just not wake up because the alcohol has compromised their means to deal with the heat in massive swathes of the planet.

Those sorts of problems are not conducive to societies actively elevating the QoL of anyone.

No, not how it "would want", you live in the present. It is how you treat people in the NOW and future. Ghandi had it right. Daydreaming about " ifs and buts" isn't helping anyone in the present. Even among the poor, they can treat someone badly or treat them as family. You should keep in mind that my tribe specifically chose to prosper in extremely harsh conditions in the desert that others deemed "uninhabitable" although there was plenty of lush land in other regions, so I am coming from that perspective that this is not only doable but humans have the ability to thrive if they properly allocate their resources and care for one another.

Some place like Indonesia cannot just erase climate change, however, they can reduce wealth inequality. Allowing the wealthy to hoard resources and wealth makes this worse, rather than better and Indonesia has had rising inequality for a while now. I disagree that civilization is not impossible due to the rich, if we actually address the rich, this can be greatly improved upon.

We already have the technology to rehabilitate the land, it is just a matter of redistributing resources to do so. In harsh environments we already create "artificial environments" and this very well may be the near future for mankind in order to survive. In other threads previously, I have discussed " future cities" and honestly the only thing standing in the way of civilization moving to achieve this now is the wealthy. That is why they must be addressed in order to accomplish what is necessary for betterment of mankind. I do not see that as impossible, but rather necessary. Mankind cannot allow for the continuation of the few to control and hoard the worlds resources to appease their power trips and hold civilization back. We actually do have the capabilities now of solving many of the issues impacting the world and the people if we properly allocate the resources to do so and that should take priority.

Sadly though I think it will take first world nations having to suffer greatly before they actually pull their heads out and take steps to move in this direction because they have " bystanders" syndrome. So very many things could be resolved if people would just stop working so hard to try and make things "stay the same" in an environment where the only constant is change. If they spend less trying to make it stay the same and more adapting and working for the future everyone would be better off by now.

Abomination:

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Pot, kettle, Saelune :(

Obviously not.

The pot calling the kettle black is an accusation of hypocrisy. But Saelune is not being hypocritical, because Saelune (even 17 pages back in the OP) is rejecting inappropriate civility. That leaves her in a perfectly good position to tell uncivil people asking others be to be civil that they are hypocrites.

Lil devils x:

No, not how it "would want", you live in the present. It is how you treat people in the NOW and future. Ghandi had it right. Daydreaming about " ifs and buts" isn't helping anyone in the present. Even among he poor, they can treat someone badly or treat them as family.

I meant it more as a fact that developing countries will literally be denied the capacity to enjoy anything resembling to whatwe have now, and will actively diminish in total QoL regardless of what it does. There's entire continents worth of land where billions exist where their means to feed themselves will simply disappear in 30 years time. It really is acase of 'would want to treat their most vulnerable' ... as that's about as enlightened as we're going to be capable of. Simply wishing we could turn back the hands of the clock.

People are going to die in droves.

Some place like Indonesia cannot just erase climate change, however, they can reduce wealth inequality. Allowing the wealthy to hoard resources and wealth makes this worse, rather than better and Indonesia has had rising inequality for a while now. I disagree that civilization is not impossible due to the rich, if we actually address the rich, this can be greatly improved upon.

Yeah but redistribute wealth how? You can't just go up to a poor craftsman in an isolated Irian Jayan mountain village, give them $100. Money alone does not build infrastructure. I remember helping put together prefab shelters in East Timor and the closest reliable electrical grid was Darwin.

The fact of the matter is we're well past any conventional idea of a wealth redistributive effort would actually contribute a meaningful good beyond those already living in the developed world. It would be easier to simply come up with a 'world labour currency' and nations sharing skills, intelligent labour, educational resources and materials, with an official mission statement of a non-negotiable world infrastructure development standard anyplace there are people on the globe.

And that is going to require more than just a lot of people with powerdrills and prefabs.

I can't even begin to pretend to understand just how big a job that would be. And the fact of the matter is nbo country would even agree to it. And even if by some miracle it would actually get a binding UN resolution behind it and developed nations began contributing a meaningful volume of its productivity dedicated to the cause, arguably it's already too little, too late.

A lot of our efforts are just guaranteed to disappear with sea level rises that are, already, even with immediate action, going to transform a metric fuckton of people into environmental refugees. And that's not even beginning to take into account the increase in violence and possible calamities of major power struggles between nations.

Look, here's a realistic prognosis of Indonesia. In 50 years time it will simply be Java and the rest of the country will descend into a series of civil wars against anauthoritarian Javanese government that already had a low opinion of the island societies that were forced to be 'Indonesian' by barrel point. Aceh province is rebel central, and once Aceh descends into outright secession during a particularly traumatic political event that rocks Indonesian stability, a lot of other places will rise up in tandem.

Climatre change is nation ending. On its own. Indonesia is merely a micrological examination that will be played out across multiple places of the world.

It's already too late. All we can do is prepare for the worst and hope that shocks enough people what we need to do to prepare adequately that maybe people will meaningfully talk about climate change. But they won't. We both know they won't. You can tell them conservative estimates of a 2 degree increase still means a 9m sea level rise. They won't care. You couldtell trhem that climate change will kill the only living organism on earth you can see from space, and provides enough biomass and ecosytem niches to support and feed 100s of millions of people who rely on it existing for fishing purposes.

They don't care.

Basically the only solution now is to shoot the career political class and shift to a less divisive, direct-action government formation. Make it as hard as possible for people to not care or do anything once you remove garbage rhetoric of political party spin and waffling and the 'professional inaction' of traditional political affiliations.

Make it as much as humanly possible hard not to act... and if people still do not care, well we don't deserve to survive as we are.

But we're never going to get that type of government. We're going to be stuck with 'professional inactivists' who are propped up by megacorporate lobbyists to pretend like something as fundamentally stupid as gay marriage deserves actual political discussion. And that it's something of note, or achievement, or worthy of celebration when governments allow it to happen simply because religious idiots want to make taxpayers pay for their idiocy.

If you were to ixnay the open bollocks of party-wide spin that serves to do nothing but allow politicians to never have to act against the wishes of their corporate lobbyist campaign funders ... have adirect-advocacy and action council that their only remit is to aggressively assess empirical necessity towards government action ... we might get something done.

But we won't.

Instead what will happen is even as humanity marches into self-destruction we'll have politicians making battlefields over something like 'Happy Holidays' replacing 'Merry Christmas' because religious people are fucking idiots and it's an easy way for a politician to win a political office with party rhetoric all while pretending to be of any meaningfulness in terms of total agency and efficacy of agenda.

We already have the technology to rehabilitate the land, it is just a matter of redistributing resources to do so. In harsh environments we already create "artificial environments" and this very well may be the near future for mankind in order to survive. In other threads previously, I have discussed " future cities" and honestly the only thing standing in the way of civilization moving to achieve this now is the wealthy. That is why they must be addressed in order to accomplish what is necessary for betterment of mankind. I do not see that as impossible, but rather necessary. Mankind cannot allow for the continuation of the few to control and hoard the worlds resources to appease their power trips and hold civilization back. We actually do have the capabilities now of solving many of the issues impacting the world and the people if we properly allocate the resources to do so and that should take priority.

Okay, no... we can't. Total animal biodiversity on the planet has fallen by 60%. Most of the world's topsoil will be gone. Even with a projected 2 degree rise will render half of the world's grassland as desert. A handful of societies will survive a 4+ degree rise. At the cost of everyone else. At the cost of everything else. And the real kick in the teeth will be the people that survive it will be the people who either did nothing, or benefitted by their parents and grandparents doing fuck all about it.

We may very well be the only current sapient lifeform in the galaxy, and rather than keep our world a pristine example of the Holocene era that gave rise to a creature capable of bringing life and beauty to the stars, we knowingly destroyed the world and bred only ugliness and death.

Survival is already pointless. Building some magical ark that has to somehow survive the eons of our cumulative mistakes is merely hiding from the repercussionsand proof there is nothing worth saving within them. Which is probably the biggest indictment in all of this. Every aspect of this. The sincere and real question of whether humans are worth saving if we couldn't even bother to do anything but run away and hide from the inevitable.

Actually contemplate the enormity of the moral considerations we have to make. Billions through no fault of their own will die just so a handful of countries could prepare for the outcomes of a fate they visited upon not just our species, but possibly the only life in the galaxy we will ever know. It's like the sinking of a hypothetical Titanic, but allowing only the murderers and rapists a lifeboat.

As it stands, we've hypothetically done about 1.1 million years of damage in 200 years. If we stopped breaking shit right now it will take 2+ million years for the planet to correct.

No. Some magical ark will not save us from ourselves. It will just keep some people alive to perpetuate the consumption of life and beauty on Earth. It's postponement, not survival. Survival assumes adaptation. If humans were legitimately going to survive themselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would already meaningfully be doing something.

So this is where we're at. In a grand, utilitarian metanarrative of the Earth and its organisms, there is a moral argument whether humans should persist and that our efforts areactully better spent preventing the millions of other species that will disappear because of us.

Saving people might not be worth the mass extinction event of simply persisting or spending resources trying to secure human survival. There's no proof whatsoever humans will legitimately survive, but there is proof abundant that humans will cause a mass extinction event whether it survives or not.

Sadly though I think it will take first world nations having to suffer greatly before they actually pull their heads out and take steps to move in this direction because they have " bystanders" syndrome. So very many things could be resolved if people would just stop working so hard to try and make things "stay the same" in an environment where the only constant is change. If they spend less trying to make it stay the same and more adapting and working for the future everyone would be better off by now.

Ehhh, I think the problem is more inert. As a baby you're not actually self-aware. In fact it takes time after you're born to achieve 'emergence' through a system of elabourate and intricate biological processes and accelerated brain development that allows an infant to actually achieve a conceptualiation of self and other. The fact that science has basically fundamentally proven humans aren't that special due merely their sapience, that it's just a fortunate happenstance of biological processes that we can boil down to simple readings, studies, experimentation and recordings of brain activity and physically hand to you as a wad of paper and videos and say; "This is our moment of self-awareness."

Honestly, I get why there are climate change deniers. I get why people believe in God(s). It's frightening. That all you are we can now breakdown into unromantic numbers... and we can categorically say that is you being self-aware. It's scary, hard, and cruel, and suddenly you realize there is no God that can possibly actually care for you. I mean deities could hypothetically exist, but they don't give a shit about you. You're a byproduct of now quantifiable data and even if they did exist, you're merely a coincidence of what they truly wanted to create.

And I guess that's frightening to people.

It's much easier to say that God made the universe, cares about us, made us a planet even, and did it all for us. They gave us this planet. It's ours. Science is merely trying to test our faith.

Science has progressed to a point where there can be no doubt that you are not special. God(s) does not take an interest in your life. Your life and whatever you might attribute to your 'soul' is phenomenologically quantifiable ... just give scientists enough money, resources and time.

Self-awareness did not simply 'begin' at your birth or before it. It was a causal relationship to sensory data and organic development, came with organic steps, came with organic milestones, finally achieved a holistic fruition (hopefully). And what might that say about your 'soul' when you die? Tough break, that.

And I get why that might frighten people.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:

No, not how it "would want", you live in the present. It is how you treat people in the NOW and future. Ghandi had it right. Daydreaming about " ifs and buts" isn't helping anyone in the present. Even among he poor, they can treat someone badly or treat them as family.

I meant it more as a fact that developing countries will literally be denied the capacity to enjoy anything resembling to whatwe have now, and will actively diminish in total QoL regardless of what it does. There's entire continents worth of land where billions exist where their means to feed themselves will simply disappear in 30 years time. It really is acase of 'would want to treat their most vulnerable' ... as that's about as enlightened as we're going to be capable of. Simply wishing we could turn back the hands of the clock.

People are going to die in droves.

Some place like Indonesia cannot just erase climate change, however, they can reduce wealth inequality. Allowing the wealthy to hoard resources and wealth makes this worse, rather than better and Indonesia has had rising inequality for a while now. I disagree that civilization is not impossible due to the rich, if we actually address the rich, this can be greatly improved upon.

Yeah but redistribute wealth how? You can't just go up to a poor craftsman in an isolated Irian Jayan mountain village, give them $100. Money alone does not build infrastructure. I remember helping put together prefab shelters in East Timor and the closest reliable electrical grid was Darwin.

The fact of the matter is we're well past any conventional idea of a wealth redistributive effort would actually contribute a meaningful good beyond those already living in the developed world. It would be easier to simply come up with a 'world labour currency' and nations sharing skills, intelligent labour, educational resources and materials, with an official mission statement of a non-negotiable world infrastructure development standard anyplace there are people on the globe.

And that is going to require more than just a lot of people with powerdrills and prefabs.

I can't even begin to pretend to understand just how big a job that would be. And the fact of the matter is nbo country would even agree to it. And even if by some miracle it would actually get a binding UN resolution behind it and developed nations began contributing a meaningful volume of its productivity dedicated to the cause, arguably it's already too little, too late.

A lot of our efforts are just guaranteed to disappear with sea level rises that are, already, even with immediate action, going to transform a metric fuckton of people into environmental refugees. And that's not even beginning to take into account the increase in violence and possible calamities of major power struggles between nations.

Look, here's a realistic prognosis of Indonesia. In 50 years time it will simply be Java and the rest of the country will descend into a series of civil wars against anauthoritarian Javanese government that already had a low opinion of the island societies that were forced to be 'Indonesian' by barrel point. Aceh province is rebel central, and once Aceh descends into outright secession during a particularly traumatic political event that rocks Indonesian stability, a lot of other places will rise up in tandem.

Climatre change is nation ending. On its own. Indonesia is merely a micrological examination that will be played out across multiple places of the world.

It's already too late. All we can do is prepare for the worst and hope that shocks enough people what we need to do to prepare adequately that maybe people will meaningfully talk about climate change. But they won't. We both know they won't. You can tell them conservative estimates of a 2 degree increase still means a 9m sea level rise. They won't care. You couldtell trhem that climate change will kill the only living organism on earth you can see from space, and provides enough biomass and ecosytem niches to support and feed 100s of millions of people who rely on it existing for fishing purposes.

They don't care.

Basically the only solution now is to shoot the career political class and shift to a less divisive, direct-action government formation. Make it as hard as possible for people to not care or do anything once you remove garbage rhetoric of political party spin and waffling and the 'professional inaction' of traditional political affiliations.

Make it as much as humanly possible hard not to act... and if people still do not care, well we don't deserve to survive as we are.

But we're never going to get that type of government. We're going to be stuck with 'professional inactivists' who are propped up by megacorporate lobbyists to pretend like something as fundamentally stupid as gay marriage deserves actual political discussion. And that it's something of note, or achievement, or worthy of celebration when governments allow it to happen simply because religious idiots want to make taxpayers pay for their idiocy.

If you were to ixnay the open bollocks of party-wide spin that serves to do nothing but allow politicians to never have to act against the wishes of their corporate lobbyist campaign funders ... have adirect-advocacy and action council that their only remit is to aggressively assess empirical necessity towards government action ... we might get something done.

But we won't.

Instead what will happen is even as humanity marches into self-destruction we'll have politicians making battlefields over something like 'Happy Holidays' replacing 'Merry Christmas' because religious people are fucking idiots and it's an easy way for a politician to win a political office with party rhetoric all while pretending to be of any meaningfulness in terms of total agency and efficacy of agenda.

We already have the technology to rehabilitate the land, it is just a matter of redistributing resources to do so. In harsh environments we already create "artificial environments" and this very well may be the near future for mankind in order to survive. In other threads previously, I have discussed " future cities" and honestly the only thing standing in the way of civilization moving to achieve this now is the wealthy. That is why they must be addressed in order to accomplish what is necessary for betterment of mankind. I do not see that as impossible, but rather necessary. Mankind cannot allow for the continuation of the few to control and hoard the worlds resources to appease their power trips and hold civilization back. We actually do have the capabilities now of solving many of the issues impacting the world and the people if we properly allocate the resources to do so and that should take priority.

Okay, no... we can't. Total animal biodiversity on the planet has fallen by 60%. Most of the world's topsoil will be gone. Even with a projected 2 degree rise will render half of the world's grassland as desert. A handful of societies will survive a 4+ degree rise. At the cost of everyone else. At the cost of everything else. And the real kick in the teeth will be the people that survive it will be the people who either did nothing, or benefitted by their parents and grandparents doing fuck all about it.

We may very well be the only current sapient lifeform in the galaxy, and rather than keep our world a pristine example of the Holocene era that gave rise to a creature capable of bringing life and beauty to the stars, we knowingly destroyed the world and bred only ugliness and death.

Survival is already pointless. Building some magical ark that has to somehow survive the eons of our cumulative mistakes is merely hiding from the repercussionsand proof there is nothing worth saving within them. Which is probably the biggest indictment in all of this. Every aspect of this. The sincere and real question of whether humans are worth saving if we couldn't even bother to do anything but run away and hide from the inevitable.

Actually contemplate the enormity of the moral considerations we have to make. Billions through no fault of their own will die just so a handful of countries could prepare for the outcomes of a fate they visited upon not just our species, but possibly the only life in the galaxy we will ever know. It's like the sinking of a hypothetical Titanic, but allowing only the murderers and rapists a lifeboat.

As it stands, we've hypothetically done about 1.1 million years of damage in 200 years. If we stopped breaking shit right now it will take 2+ million years for the planet to correct.

No. Some magical ark will not save us from ourselves. It will just keep some people alive to perpetuate the consumption of life and beauty on Earth. It's postponement, not survival. Survival assumes adaptation. If humans were legitimately going to survive themselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would already meaningfully be doing something.

So this is where we're at. In a grand, utilitarian metanarrative of the Earth and its organisms, there is a moral argument whether humans should persist and that our efforts areactully better spent preventing the millions of other species that will disappear because of us.

Saving people might not be worth the mass extinction event of simply persisting or spending resources trying to secure human survival. There's no proof whatsoever humans will legitimately survive, but there is proof abundant that humans will cause a mass extinction event whether it survives or not.

Sadly though I think it will take first world nations having to suffer greatly before they actually pull their heads out and take steps to move in this direction because they have " bystanders" syndrome. So very many things could be resolved if people would just stop working so hard to try and make things "stay the same" in an environment where the only constant is change. If they spend less trying to make it stay the same and more adapting and working for the future everyone would be better off by now.

Ehhh, I think the problem is more inert. As a baby you're not actually self-aware. In fact it takes time after you're born to achieve 'emergence' through a system of elabourate and intricate biological processes and accelerated brain development that allows an infant to actually achieve a conceptualiation of self and other. The fact that science has basically fundamentally proven humans aren't that special due merely their sapience, that it's just a fortunate happenstance of biological processes that we can boil down to simple readings, studies, experimentation and recordings of brain activity and physically hand to you as a wad of paper and videos and say; "This is our moment of self-awareness."

Honestly, I get why there are climate change deniers. I get why people believe in God(s). It's frightening. That all you are we can now breakdown into unromantic numbers... and we can categorically say that is you being self-aware. It's scary, hard, and cruel, and suddenly you realize there is no God that can possibly actually care for you. I mean deities could hypothetically exist, but they don't give a shit about you. You're a byproduct of now quantifiable data and even if they did exist, you're merely a coincidence of what they truly wanted to create.

And I guess that's frightening to people.

It's much easier to say that God made the universe, cares about us, made us a planet even, and did it all for us. They gave us this planet. It's ours. Science is merely trying to test our faith.

Science has progressed to a point where there can be no doubt that you are not special. God(s) does not take an interest in your life. Your life and whatever you might attribute to your 'soul' is phenomenologically quantifiable ... just give scientists enough money, resources and time.

Self-awareness did not simply 'begin' at your birth or before it. It was a causal relationship to sensory data and organic development, came with organic steps, came with organic milestones, finally achieved a holistic fruition (hopefully). And what might that say about your 'soul' when you die? Tough break, that.

And I get why that might frighten people.

I had edited my post above before you responded to add the bit about thriving in an environment that others may find uninhabitable, however, that is still not my point. We do not go about addressing this the same way we always have. Instead of giving a poor person $100 you start actually building the cities of the future and give them an actual future. One of the primary benefits of places like Dubai and Qatar becoming super wealthy is it also showed us what can actually be achieved in a desert if resources are applied. From underground gardens and vertical farming, artificial environments are something that is actually achievable if resources are applied. If we stop focusing on the hoarding of wealth for personal gain and instead focus on building futuristic highly efficient self sustaining cities that provide for millions, we can shift towards a better future. We have to stop doing what we have been doing all together though and be willing to take a new approach. Desalination for water, turn the brine into a building material to build the vertical farms and housing. In the approach I am suggesting, they will no longer be farming on the land at all, they will be in structures such as this:
image
image

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/d7478k/company-plans-to-build-house-from-3d-printed-salt

Provide energy for them with everything from algae to solar. Alga has the extra benefit of removing Carbon Dioxide from the air and producing oxygen.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

Though these are just the tip of what we are capable of, there is so much more we can actually do now if we just choose to do so. People just need to get their priorities straight.

Who needs steel when we have this now?
https://makezine.com/2017/01/17/3d-printed-material-10x-stronger-steel/https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/06/prweb14447660.htm

EDIT: In addition, I see that science has progressed to the point that there is no doubt we ARE special. Everyone's immune system is unique.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/environment-more-genetics-shapes-immune-system

Even identical twins immune systems are not identical. I am one of those that believes we need a more individualized approach to medicine rather than treat very different individuals all the same and expect the same result. Life does not work that way.

Civility to Dems is bullshit, and to Republicans are even more bullshit.

Also #NeverBeto.

runic knight:

Seanchaidh:

runic knight:

Heavy consolidation of state power?

In order to crack down on communists and racial undesirables, try to conquer the world...

You know, since it was hyperbole to begin with, I didn't want to add further to the side-discussion of what is very much not an argument I was actually making to begin with. But after reading the reply, I think you are pretty much in agreement that they do relate strongly to the left, so I might as well point out how you are.

I was mostly pointing out how everything they did was basically to safeguard capitalism from revolution, whether that means coming up with scapegoats to blame for capitalism's failures or directing national attention to foreign threats or directly murdering those on the left. Capitalism is very compatible with authoritarianism; indeed, capitalism is dictatorship in the workplace. And of course it is, any time ownership rights are placed above the right of people to have a say in decisions which affect them, you're involved in an anti-democratic political philosophy. Whether that ownership is land ownership, slave ownership, or business ownership.

I was not agreeing with you that the modern left shares those traits in any significant capacity-- much of the so-called 'center' may, which agrees with the right that e.g. the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions movement should be outlawed-- but that's not the modern left. The modern left is more libsoc/ancom. It's about putting power in the hands of the people; liberation from oppression rather than heightened oppression to maintain the established order.

runic knight:

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Just because you can not distinguish the difference between personal attacks and criticisms relevant to your arguments, positions, and justifications doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Your arguments are terrible. And I have explained why it fails logically and rheotrically.
You morality is terrible. And I have shown why in relation to your own established declared morality.

You being a horrible childish person or a bonafide saint fighting the dark tide is irrelevant to either of those previous points. You have failed to make proper arguments. You have pushed gross logical fallacy. You have been hypocritical in your claims of morality. You have been inconsistent in your application of reason or justification.

Being on "the right side" doesn't make your failures go away, nor suddenly not worthy of criticizing. It makes it all the more imperative so you don't embarrass those who share you claimed goals, or even worse, actively sabotage them.

And I do all that while still being far more civil than your behavior deserves. But please, keep making slanderous lies about me supporting white supremacy.

Tell me, how has being as grossly uncivil as you have been helped convince me you are right?

Saelune:
I am not the one claiming to support civility. If runic knight is going to make their claims, they should follow through. They don't.

From my FIRST reply to the thread, way back when in the thread.

Civility is not always the right response, as there is always arguments for justifiable hostility in the face of true aggression, but the existence of those circumstances does not devalue civility itself, nor does it justify discarding it solely because of a need to feel justified in being hostile towards others.

You were never civil. So if you wish to call me uncivil for criticisms of your arguments, your inconsistency, or your rhetoric, that above explains why.
That said, I think I have been fairly civil in the face of someone calling roughly half the western world bigots. I still engage in good faith. I still seek to reason and argue points out. I don't rely on petty insults alone. I don't resort to single, dismissive statements when I should explain my position. I don't manufacture lies about the other posters or claim they support positions they do not without explanation solely to try to slander them or demonize them.

But this line of explanation I covered before in the thread as well, so repeating that is just treading over an already rested point too much.

You think I am uncivil, fine, I "justified" it from the start because you started as uncivil.

I still fully believe being civil is important, even if I admit there are cases where it is not the best option. But that does not include when you seem to want to justify being horrible to people who have done nothing to deserve it outside of the evils you attribute to their motivations and existence.

Seanchaidh:

runic knight:

Heavy consolidation of state power?

In order to crack down on communists and racial undesirables, try to conquer the world...

You know, since it was hyperbole to begin with, I didn't want to add further to the side-discussion of what is very much not an argument I was actually making to begin with. But after reading the reply, I think you are pretty much in agreement that they do relate strongly to the left, so I might as well point out how you are.

To start with, you agree both still push heavy consolidation of state power then, if you complaint is motivations behind that consolidation? Ok then, you can justify it done by one and condemn it done by another on your own time, and I would likely even agree with that distinction, but for the purpose of my point, that is enough and shows an agreement on your part with that shared trait.

runic knight:
Promotion of federally backed systems to aid the poor and disillusioned as a way to gain favor among the populous?

And maintain capitalism...

Giving people state-promoted jobs and support for the the purpose of making the economy stronger is still very much a left idea, especially in relation to comparing it to the modern western political left which heavily pushes safety net programs as a way to keep the economy, which is very capitalistic, going strong And that shared trait of promoting those things was the purpose of the comparison. So again, you are in agreement on that point it seems.

runic knight:
Promotion of censorship and control of language, arts, and criticisms by declaring those who make them that don't support the narrative are dangerous and thus not deserving the ability to make them?

In order to crack down on people who oppose capitalism or promote justice...

Again, you are agreeing on the quoted trait, but making the distinction between which groups were the acceptable targets in this case. Though in this case that distinction matters far, far less. I would not agree that the distinction matter when it comes to promotion of control and censorship for political reasons, even if I do agree with the overall that they aren't really the left. Your attempted distinction here is too shallow, and again seems to demonstrate that you agree with the overall point.

runic knight:
Heavy concentration on identity as part of a group and especially so in conjunction with justifying horrible behavior and tactics out of claims that everything bad going on is because you are part of said group?

Sounds like the American Right, alright.

Yup.
Never said they didn't share the trait with others, nor that the two were diametrically opposed and the antithesis of each other thereby preventing the two from having the same traits. That was sae in pretending that one were biggoted monsters and the other were heavily saints fighting the good fight.

But with regard to this point, I take you lack of any sort of dispute with it to be further agreement. Why else waste your time pointing at another party instead of addressing how it wouldn't be the same?

runic knight:
Promotion of violence against undesirable groups of acceptable targets?

See above.

Yup.
Never said that the two were diametrically opposed and the antithesis of each other. That was sae in pretending that one were biggoted monsters and the other were heavily saints fighting the good fight.

But with regard to this point, I take you lack of any sort of dispute with it to be further agreement. Why else waste your time pointing at another party instead of addressing how it wouldn't be the same?

runic knight:
Promotion of heavily ideologically controlled media that pushed narratives instead of facts?

Democracy Now! vs. Fox News *thinking face*

I don't understand your point, could you try explaining what you mean instead of relying on the equivalent of a bumper sticker and condescension? Memes in word form are fun and all, but they don't exactly convey your point well here.

Because as it is, this is the first point you haven't clearly shown you readily agree on, either by concentrating on a smaller distinction between the two, or by outright ignoring the chance to explain how they are different to instead rely on whataboutism, thereby admitting agreement with the comparison and instead trying to undermine the comparison by pointing at other acceptable examples. (which is fine here, pointing at other examples to show the weakness of making a comparison or association is a perfectly valid way to address them, but it does still admit the first association was true)

runic knight:
Open disregard of established political systems and their rulings to instead promote their leadership or condemn their opposition in spite of the existing rule of law?

While being funded by capitalists and cracking down on actual revolutionaries, reformers, and so on.

Another distinction between the two, good, but again another agreement that the trait is shared by both groups as well.

runic knight:
I'd say for the purpose of what I openly admitted was hyperbolic to show the worthlessness of the generalization committed, it has at least a defensible argument in comparing it to the modern western left

It really doesn't, not least because your perception of the "modern Western left" is a straw man mostly invented by the right. This utilization of market forces and speech is a FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF MY FREE SPEECH, WAAAAAAAAAA

Rather odd that you outright agreed with every example, save (maybe) the meme one, and yet you claim it doesn't have a defense in the comparison. Did you not realize that you agreed with every point but one there? Or did you think the handful of distinctions related to motivation, and the handful of attempted whataboutism you made would in any way actually address the point made. A point, I repeat, that was entirely meant to be hyperbolic in nature and not very defensible anyways.

You've been agreeing to a point made in hyperbole every step of the way. That is a little unexpected.

tstorm823:
It's probably better not to waste your time and effort on left vs right, it's almost all mud-slinging. But if you're gonna sling that mud, sling it correctly.

Considering the point was hyperbolic in the first place, that is sort of the point, that it IS nothing but mudslinging with little basis in a good argument. It was solely there to highlight the problem with trying to make claims about groups of people, as Saelune had, with regard to them being evil by association.

While I could certainly point to the likes of Robespierre for great "the left is horrible" comparison, that is just doing the same thing as I was criticizing, only without the hyperbole to make the point that it is wrong. The guy who pushed for the complete removal of religion, only to promote himself as nearly some sort of athiest god personified by the end of things would be great fodder there, I know. But since I was trying to highlight the worthlessness of such things in the first place, I instead chose what was considerably more obvious a bad example (albeit one that could still be argued on surface-level comparisons).

The point was "these comparisons are worthless, and even the few connections used to justify it are ultimately worthless toward making a point".

What better way to highlight that then making a hyperbolic claim that they have since then spent multiple replies concentrating on nuance distinguishing the two associated from one another or by pointing at another group that ALSO fits the bill and in effect showcase how such attempted associations are shallow to begin with since the same criteria used to associate it to one can be used to associate it to others as well?

Thank you for proving my entire OP true.

Oh and 'Its ok to be uncivil cause you were first' is a horrible excuse because I can claim that too. But again, my OP was about how 'civility' is BS, and I never claimed to be civil. If the other side being uncivil first makes return incivility justified, then I am justified because Republicans have been uncivil to me and LGBT people before I was even born.

Checkmate dude.

Agema:

Abomination:

Saelune:
If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Pot, kettle, Saelune :(

Obviously not.

The pot calling the kettle black is an accusation of hypocrisy. But Saelune is not being hypocritical, because Saelune (even 17 pages back in the OP) is rejecting inappropriate civility. That leaves her in a perfectly good position to tell uncivil people asking others be to be civil that they are hypocrites.

Not that people who disagree with me get this though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl7JWrwkpSM&feature=youtu.be

'Don't be offended when I say pussy but not when Donald Trump says it'

My life right now.

The same people applauding Donald Trump for "telling it like it is" when he insults his opponents and rivals are most likely the same people telling Rashida Tlaib to "be civil" when she insults Donald Trump

Lil devils x:
I had edited my post above before you responded to add the bit about thriving in an environment that others may find uninhabitable, however, that is still not my point. We do not go about addressing this the same way we always have. Instead of giving a poor person $100 you start actually building the cities of the future and give them an actual future.

Okay, no. You can't. Giving some isolated mountain community some money will not magically give them a Western livelihood. Simply throwing money at people will merely increase inflation. Money does not work the way you think it does. There is hypothetically infinite amounts of money but still only finite resources and labour.

Someone like a younger me with a rifle, helping putting together shelters and promoting regional security was infinitely more valuable than simply giving every villager a pay cheque.

One of the primary benefits of places like Dubai and Qatar becoming super wealthy is it also showed us what can actually be achieved in a desert if resources are applied. From underground gardens and vertical farming, artificial environments are something that is actually achievable if resources are applied.

Dubai relies on indentured labour and Saudi bankrolling simply to stay afloat. What the metric fuck are you even talking about?

This is how the people who work actually live in Dubai.

image

They have fucking gulags. Honest-to-fucking-God gulags.

This is how the actual workers who make Dubai liveable live themselves.

image

Both Dubai and Qatar are basically modern-day slave states. Their employers control every aspect of poor migrant lives. They seize their passports. Force them to often work 100+ hour weeks with low workplace safety controls, they have utterly illegalized unionization, and the only people getting rich are investors and other capitalist-class functionaries of its fascist bureaucracy. They control every aspect of their lives and and enforce dehumanizing conditions of entrenched poverty and servitude.

Dubai and Qatar are basically late stage capitalist societies. And they'll also be amongst the first to fall once the economic systemsthat allow that gross iniquity start screeching to a halt.

I wouldn't spend a penny in Dubai, because frankly as lacking in fundamental principles of humanism to which I hypocritically subscribe, at the very least I have standards and wouldn't be caught dead personally being a patron of that system or at all entertaining an iota of its validity of existing as it does at all.

Christ, I knew you were well-to-do but how out of touch are you? I mean sure, I don't expect people to understand what homelessness actually feels like to talk about why youth homelessness is such a horrific thing in Australia, but I do expect them to at least try to scratch the surface and empathize with their material reality.

Dubai is a tax free holiday resort that if not for a veritable wealth of gold and oil wouldn't have been developed at all. And in the post-oil world (whether by choice or necessity) will simply get reclaimed by the desert once you get that catastrophic 3-4 degree rise. Dubai is a pretty shithole made up of the terminally exploited and indentured, and a group of Saudi royals with more money than sense.

If we stop focusing on the hoarding of wealth for personal gain and instead focus on building futuristic highly efficient self sustaining cities that provide for millions, we can shift towards a better future.

Better future for whom? What? The people that created this mess to begin with? I live in Australia, I'm guilty as sin. If I had an actual moral bone in my body I'd be planting IEDs in storm drains waiting for the Prime Minister's car to drive near one. I'd be waiting for the next Gina Rinehart public spiel with a .30-06 from 400 yards away.

We are literally beyond the capacity for a better future. Prestige has weakened and killed the human spirit, and billions will pay for it. That's it.

We have to stop doing what we have been doing all together though and be willing to take a new approach. Desalination for water, turn the brine into a building material to build the vertical farms and housing. In the approach I am suggesting, they will no longer be farming on the land at all, they will be in structures such as this:
image
image

And for the billions of other people this is not a solution? Like, be realistic here. All of these are mythical stopgaps in the face of a world that will simply not refuse to eat. A whole world of people who neither benefit from projects like this, neither receive any profits or benefits from their construction, and neither will ever afford any of its luxuries. For starters, desal. Incredibly energy intensive. People in places hardest hit from climate change will not be able to manage their upkeep.

There simply is not enough materials and time to suitably elevate the world infrastructure to a point where this feat can be managed.

Provide energy for them with everything from algae to solar. Alga has the extra benefit of removing Carbon Dioxide from the air and producing oxygen.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

Once again, and for all those people in wartorn nations and places of increased political instability due to increasing drought, famine, and iniquity? Moreover, oil is a fungible commodity. If developed nations are buying less of its total production, other nations will take advantage of it.

The greater the availability, the cheaper it gets. As developed nations reduce support for traditional energy resources, poorer nations will begin buying greater volumes. What? Are you going to tell all those poor arse people that they can't buy that oil? That they have to deal with the effects of climate change that they themselves did not create that they're not allowed to diversify and evolve their industrial practices and capacity?

What's the gameplan there? Declare war on the poorest people hardest hit by the effects developed countries have imposed upon them?

Though these are just the tip of what we are capable of, there is so much more we can actually do now if we just choose to do so. People just need to get their priorities straight.

And literally 100% of it unviable for undeveloped countries. Hell, algal fuel alone is unviable for economic zones like Europe. Algal fuel requires ridiculous ocean frontages and tiny populations relative to gross production capability.

So algal fuel is a fantastic solution for an Australia. For a Europe that has 25 times the population and a third of the total ocean frontage, and a tenth of the viable type of ocean frontage for major algal biofuel production ... ain't exactly going to help them.

And this is kind of problematic in terms of algal biofuel production. It's only feasible for a handful of developed countries. Which means all the necessary investment to make it a reality will be on the shoulders of a handful of countries. The technologies are not applicable to a Europe or even a U.S. on a level that makes them competitive with traditional energy resources.

Who needs steel when we have this now?
https://makezine.com/2017/01/17/3d-printed-material-10x-stronger-steel/https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/06/prweb14447660.htm

You do recognize that steel has material properties that make it useful beyond 'being strong', right? Moreover, things like sheet steel are not only easily pressable and cutable, it's actually energy and time efficient material, and it can be easily purposed at multilevel processing for project planning and onsite construction and manufacturing.

We're not getting rid of steel anytime soon, particularly if we're expecting to radically develop world infrastructure.

EDIT: In addition, I see that science has progressed to the point that there is no doubt we ARE special. Everyone's immune system is unique.

Not my point. 'Unique' does not mean special. Congratulations, everyone is unique ... that does not mean they're special.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Better future for whom? What? The people that created this mess to begin with? I live in Australia, I'm guilty as sin. If I had an actual moral bone in my body I'd be planting IEDs in storm drains waiting for the Prime Minister's car to drive near one. I'd be waiting for the next Gina Rinehart public spiel with a .30-06 from 400 yards away.

That's unAustralian...should be a .303 and we measure in metres.

Also wouldn't work to help things, unfortunately. In no way would I grieve for Rinehart, it's just that political murders tend not to improve situations.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
We are literally beyond the capacity for a better future. Prestige has weakened and killed the human spirit, and billions will pay for it. That's it.

Disagree there. A "better future" is possible (though, depends what you mean better than), it's just not going to happen because the people who really matter don't want it to, and the people who've collectively got power aren't organised and active. But that's more or less all of history. The Roman Principiate or the Industrial Revolution or the Great Leap Forward could have been great leaps forwards, there technicality wasn't anything stopping them. But it's no surprise they weren't.

I actually think Dubai is a good example, it's a bright shining city and is great for everyone, except for all the people it's not great for who for some reason you don't see on travel shows.

runic knight:

You know, since it was hyperbole to begin with, I didn't want to add further to the side-discussion of what is very much not an argument I was actually making to begin with. But after reading the reply, I think you are pretty much in agreement that they do relate strongly to the left, so I might as well point out how you are.

Power of the state is traditionally not associated with the left. From the origin of the term around the French revolution, the right was about maintaining absolutist monarchical, aristocratic and clerical control of the state and populous, and throughout the 19th century the left was primarily about social, economic and political liberalisation (e.g. the UK). Much of the appeal of socialism in the early 20th century was with people who believed it offered a route to further social, economic and political liberalisation. It's also utterly nonsensical when considering that anarchism was originally developed alongside and with a lot of crossover with communism and socialism, never mind that the intended end point of communism was for the state to wither away anyway. If state power is leftist, then people like Noam Chomsky are right-wingers... a claim which will not survive even modest scrutiny.

The idea that the Nazis (and other sorts of similar-ish dictators) are "leftist" is thus largely irrational modern revisionism, largely from right-wingers who want to pretend that political evils are all someone else's problem.

To start with, you agree both still push heavy consolidation of state power then, if you complaint is motivations behind that consolidation? Ok then, you can justify it done by one and condemn it done by another on your own time, and I would likely even agree with that distinction, but for the purpose of my point, that is enough and shows an agreement on your part with that shared trait.

If you want to concede that the Nazis are not left-wing as you originally stated then you may as well do so clearly.

Giving people state-promoted jobs and support for the the purpose of making the economy stronger is still very much a left idea, especially in relation to comparing it to the modern western political left which heavily pushes safety net programs as a way to keep the economy, which is very capitalistic, going strong.

No, it's not leftist. It's been conventional economic theory and practice for the postwar era in capitalist economies, under left or right wing governments. There has been a greater tendency to lean on monetary rather than fiscal stimulus since the 1980s, although the evidence is increasingly clear that monetary interventions alone tend to be inadequate in the face of serious downturns.

Yup.

Never said they didn't share the trait with others...

Again, here you are effectively conceding that your rationale for calling the Nazis left earlier is flawed.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:
I had edited my post above before you responded to add the bit about thriving in an environment that others may find uninhabitable, however, that is still not my point. We do not go about addressing this the same way we always have. Instead of giving a poor person $100 you start actually building the cities of the future and give them an actual future.

Okay, no. You can't. Giving some isolated mountain community some money will not magically give them a Western livelihood. Simply throwing money at people will merely increase inflation. Money does not work the way you think it does. There is hypothetically infinite amounts of money but still only finite resources and labour.

Someone like a younger me with a rifle, helping putting together shelters and promoting regional security was infinitely more valuable than simply giving every villager a pay cheque.

One of the primary benefits of places like Dubai and Qatar becoming super wealthy is it also showed us what can actually be achieved in a desert if resources are applied. From underground gardens and vertical farming, artificial environments are something that is actually achievable if resources are applied.

Dubai relies on indentured labour and Saudi bankrolling simply to stay afloat. What the metric fuck are you even talking about?

This is how the people who work actually live in Dubai.

image

They have fucking gulags. Honest-to-fucking-God gulags.

This is how the actual workers who make Dubai liveable live themselves.

image

Both Dubai and Qatar are basically modern-day slave states. Their employers control every aspect of poor migrant lives. They seize their passports. Force them to often work 100+ hour weeks with low workplace safety controls, they have utterly illegalized unionization, and the only people getting rich are investors and other capitalist-class functionaries of its fascist bureaucracy. They control every aspect of their lives and and enforce dehumanizing conditions of entrenched poverty and servitude.

Dubai and Qatar are basically late stage capitalist societies. And they'll also be amongst the first to fall once the economic systemsthat allow that gross iniquity start screeching to a halt.

I wouldn't spend a penny in Dubai, because frankly as lacking in fundamental principles of humanism to which I hypocritically subscribe, at the very least I have standards and wouldn't be caught dead personally being a patron of that system or at all entertaining an iota of its validity of existing as it does at all.

Christ, I knew you were well-to-do but how out of touch are you? I mean sure, I don't expect people to understand what homelessness actually feels like to talk about why youth homelessness is such a horrific thing in Australia, but I do expect them to at least try to scratch the surface and empathize with their material reality.

Dubai is a tax free holiday resort that if not for a veritable wealth of gold and oil wouldn't have been developed at all. And in the post-oil world (whether by choice or necessity) will simply get reclaimed by the desert once you get that catastrophic 3-4 degree rise. Dubai is a pretty shithole made up of the terminally exploited and indentured, and a group of Saudi royals with more money than sense.

If we stop focusing on the hoarding of wealth for personal gain and instead focus on building futuristic highly efficient self sustaining cities that provide for millions, we can shift towards a better future.

Better future for whom? What? The people that created this mess to begin with? I live in Australia, I'm guilty as sin. If I had an actual moral bone in my body I'd be planting IEDs in storm drains waiting for the Prime Minister's car to drive near one. I'd be waiting for the next Gina Rinehart public spiel with a .30-06 from 400 yards away.

We are literally beyond the capacity for a better future. Prestige has weakened and killed the human spirit, and billions will pay for it. That's it.

We have to stop doing what we have been doing all together though and be willing to take a new approach. Desalination for water, turn the brine into a building material to build the vertical farms and housing. In the approach I am suggesting, they will no longer be farming on the land at all, they will be in structures such as this:
image
image

And for the billions of other people this is not a solution? Like, be realistic here. All of these are mythical stopgaps in the face of a world that will simply not refuse to eat. A whole world of people who neither benefit from projects like this, neither receive any profits or benefits from their construction, and neither will ever afford any of its luxuries. For starters, desal. Incredibly energy intensive. People in places hardest hit from climate change will not be able to manage their upkeep.

There simply is not enough materials and time to suitably elevate the world infrastructure to a point where this feat can be managed.

Provide energy for them with everything from algae to solar. Alga has the extra benefit of removing Carbon Dioxide from the air and producing oxygen.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

Once again, and for all those people in wartorn nations and places of increased political instability due to increasing drought, famine, and iniquity? Moreover, oil is a fungible commodity. If developed nations are buying less of its total production, other nations will take advantage of it.

The greater the availability, the cheaper it gets. As developed nations reduce support for traditional energy resources, poorer nations will begin buying greater volumes. What? Are you going to tell all those poor arse people that they can't buy that oil? That they have to deal with the effects of climate change that they themselves did not create that they're not allowed to diversify and evolve their industrial practices and capacity?

What's the gameplan there? Declare war on the poorest people hardest hit by the effects developed countries have imposed upon them?

Though these are just the tip of what we are capable of, there is so much more we can actually do now if we just choose to do so. People just need to get their priorities straight.

And literally 100% of it unviable for undeveloped countries. Hell, algal fuel alone is unviable for economic zones like Europe. Algal fuel requires ridiculous ocean frontages and tiny populations relative to gross production capability.

So algal fuel is a fantastic solution for an Australia. For a Europe that has 25 times the population and a third of the total ocean frontage, and a tenth of the viable type of ocean frontage for major algal biofuel production ... ain't exactly going to help them.

And this is kind of problematic in terms of algal biofuel production. It's only feasible for a handful of developed countries. Which means all the necessary investment to make it a reality will be on the shoulders of a handful of countries. The technologies are not applicable to a Europe or even a U.S. on a level that makes them competitive with traditional energy resources.

Who needs steel when we have this now?
https://makezine.com/2017/01/17/3d-printed-material-10x-stronger-steel/https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/06/prweb14447660.htm

You do recognize that steel has material properties that make it useful beyond 'being strong', right? Moreover, things like sheet steel are not only easily pressable and cutable, it's actually energy and time efficient material, and it can be easily purposed at multilevel processing for project planning and onsite construction and manufacturing.

We're not getting rid of steel anytime soon, particularly if we're expecting to radically develop world infrastructure.

EDIT: In addition, I see that science has progressed to the point that there is no doubt we ARE special. Everyone's immune system is unique.

Not my point. 'Unique' does not mean special. Congratulations, everyone is unique ... that does not mean they're special.

Here you go again, a bunch of useless information that in no way applies to this actual proposal because you are again, looking at trying to " keep things the same as they have been". Let's start from the beginning so you can actually grasp how this works, since in order to actually understand this, you have to forget what you know about how things have been exploited and abused in the past and present.

What is a " future city?"
For many years now, we have had scientists, inventors, architects all working together and separately all over the globe imagining , designing and planning cities of the future and they have come up with some fantastic, well thought out, highly efficient, self sustaining city designs that eliminate waste, pollution, poverty, and and are designed to give all humans living there access to luxuries, entertainment, education, exercise, medical care and meet all human needs. These cities are not designed for only the wealthy in mind, but for all people and are designed to be able to house vastly more millions of people than our current backwards cities are capable of. These future city competitions have been going on for a long time now, and have come up with some amazing planning.

How they have in the past and are currently building things in Dubai, Qatar or anywhere else for that matter is irrelevant here because that is not how you actually build a future city. Showing that these things are possible even in the harshest of climates is what purpose their example serve, nothing else about them is relevant here. In order to build a future city, you actually bring in a team of highly educated skilled robotics experts and they start by building a massive 3d printer that replicates itself. The robots will build the robots that will build your city, not slave labor. The robots will build the robots that repair your machines that build your city.

You start by importing just enough materials to build the machines that will gather the necessary waste materials needed to build your city, as most of the city is actually built from waste rather than what most consider to be valuable resources in the present as we have now come to the point where:
1) robots are cheaper than and more efficient than a Chinese worker and can repair themselves.
2) we can 3d print building materials from waste products such as air pollution, saltwater brine and garbage.
4) We now have machines that have been created to work under environments humans would find impossible, such as in space, under the ocean, in the desert or even on Mars and they will be capable of working at an efficiency rate that humans could not remotely compare to. The more machines you create to build the city, the faster it will happen.
5) The actual building structures are built by 3d printers and are lifted into place by machines. They are stackable and expandable, and can grown to meet the cities needs in the future. They can expand vertically and horizontally in order to create new housing, farms, gardens or waste recycling management facility at will. Since the cities are self sustaining, there isn't any a real demand for much in the way of outside resources once the city is established.
6) Since the cities are designed to enhance QoL for those living there, people will be able to focus more on things they actually want to focus on rather than waste all their time just trying to merely survive, they will be able to actually thrive and allow civilization to advance.
7) I am not pretending we will not have to address problems as they arise, of course we will, but this will be a much better course for mankind than the current dynamic of wealthy hoard everything to keep the people in poverty so they can have power over them and keep holding civilization back. Once we actually address the issue of the wealthy causing the problems in the first place, we can move on and actually apply resources in a manner that benefits the whole of mankind, and not used to feed their egos and whims as is the present. You have to stop trying to hold onto the past and start thinking about better ways to do things instead of trying to repeat the same mistakes that have been made repeatedly. In order to truly move forward, we have to try forward approaches instead.

Most everything you wrote would not even apply to what I am proposing here. You simply cannot keep doing the same things they have always done as you have proposed and expect a better result. You have to not do any of what you proposed, and you are moving those that are impoverished to live in these cities alongside everyone else. You do not expect their lives to remain the same either if they hope to survive. We are capable of building these cities in any climate, even in the middle of the desert if necessary. If you wish to build these in existing cities, you would have to breakdown and recycle what already exists there and utilize that city as recyclables to build the new one in it's place. You would be replacing existing structures with highly efficient ones, not trying to update the outdated and obsolete. Of course you can expect some to refuse to upgrade and continue to live as they have, and that is fine, until they cannot anymore and ultimately are forced to choose to move into the city or perish in the end as will likely happen with the effects of climate change. They should at least be given that option and have a place to go when the time comes.

You really need to learn how to think about how to not repeat the mistakes of the past and learn better means so you do not repeat them instead of trying to do the same thing over and over and over again as you suggest. Do something that has not been done if you want a different result. Yes, these cities ARE designed to relieve impoverished nations. Many of the designs were made to directly resolve that issue. How to eliminate poverty and being able to build them anywhere, whether on earth, or elsewhere was part of many of the design competitions that came up with them. The parameters of each competition have been different, but some of these cities that have been designed by these teams of scientists can literally be built anywhere... even Mars.

But as I stated earlier, THIS is why we must address the wealthy and put a stop to their idea of holding the world hostage to their economic slavery so that we can move forward. Eliminating the wealthy hoarding issue will then allow for governments to move forward on projects such as this to actually allow the people to adapt and do what it takes to address these problems and survive the present and future environment.

EDIT: AGAIN, even on desalination, you keep trying to go backwards instead of forwards. We have new technology for desalination that is not energy intensive, why would we use old methods that are?

https://www.dutchwatersector.com/news-events/news/10442-ifat2014-aquaver-announces-roll-out-of-energy-neutral-desalination-to-20-other.html
https://www.wwdmag.com/desalination/california-build-nation%E2%80%99s-first-large-scale-carbon-neutral-desalination-facility
https://www.ft.com/content/d768030e-d8ec-11e7-9504-59efdb70e12f
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-018-0004-z

Thaluikhain:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Better future for whom? What? The people that created this mess to begin with? I live in Australia, I'm guilty as sin. If I had an actual moral bone in my body I'd be planting IEDs in storm drains waiting for the Prime Minister's car to drive near one. I'd be waiting for the next Gina Rinehart public spiel with a .30-06 from 400 yards away.

That's unAustralian...should be a .303 and we measure in metres.

Also wouldn't work to help things, unfortunately. In no way would I grieve for Rinehart, it's just that political murders tend not to improve situations.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
We are literally beyond the capacity for a better future. Prestige has weakened and killed the human spirit, and billions will pay for it. That's it.

Disagree there. A "better future" is possible (though, depends what you mean better than), it's just not going to happen because the people who really matter don't want it to, and the people who've collectively got power aren't organised and active. But that's more or less all of history. The Roman Principiate or the Industrial Revolution or the Great Leap Forward could have been great leaps forwards, there technicality wasn't anything stopping them. But it's no surprise they weren't.

I actually think Dubai is a good example, it's a bright shining city and is great for everyone, except for all the people it's not great for who for some reason you don't see on travel shows.

I see Dubai as an example of showing that nice things can exist anywhere. However, The problem is they were ONLY designed and built for the wealthy. The difference between that and the " future city" competition, is they are building in the elimination of homelessness and poverty into the city from the ground up and not just trying to design a haven for the wealthy. Utilizing different design, building materials and methods, we can build cities for everyone and not just the "select few". The idea is to eliminate wealth inequality as part of the design itself. There is no reason why living comfortably has to be reserved for the wealthy when we now have the ability to provide an improved QoL to everyone if we just take a different approach.

Everything in the city is designed to be self sustaining, down to the recyclable consumables to the built in easily upgradable technology that gives equal access to technology and information. Of course this is why we must deal with the wealthy before this can happen, as they will do whatever they can to keep this from being made easily accessible to everyone as they will necessarily become powerless for civilization to advance. The wealthy are the biggest obstacle, as they have always been and have to be addressed. Wealth equality is part of the actual design of the city itself.

Lil devils x:
I see Dubai as an example of showing that nice things can exist anywhere. However, The problem is they were ONLY designed and built for the wealthy.

I think this is overlooking the main problem, which is that as soon as things stop being designed and built for the wealthy, they stop being nice and shiny. Look at the countless city's sprung up in the Soviet Union (bar the odd one or two made shiny for propaganda purposes). Look at pretty much any area of affordable housing.

The people making the decisions stop caring about making things nice and tidy when they are designing for people who aren't likely to give them a Rolex watch as a bonus.

The difference between that and the " future city" competition, is they are building in the elimination of homelessness and poverty into the city from the ground up and not just trying to design a haven for the wealthy. Utilizing different design, building materials and methods, we can build cities for everyone and not just the "select few". The idea is to eliminate wealth inequality as part of the design itself. There is no reason why living comfortably has to be reserved for the wealthy when we now have the ability to provide an improved QoL to everyone if we just take a different approach.

The only way you will eliminate wealth equality through building new cities is if you kill the poor.

Which is one of my big worries about automation, to be fair. There's no reason to keep the poor around - they take up resources and contribute to global warming. Why would the guy who built the robots want to feed us?

Lil devils x:
Of course this is why we must deal with the wealthy before this can happen

That's my problem with this. Well, I'm also dubious about some of the specific technologies expected to get this to work, but whatever, get rid of the wealthy running everything and you'd get fancy cities built, if not with the specific wondrous technologies dreamt of today, some other fancy things.

But you need to get rid of the wealthy and wealth inequality first either way. And you've got no hope, no hope at all of that happening in our lifetimes.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
I see Dubai as an example of showing that nice things can exist anywhere. However, The problem is they were ONLY designed and built for the wealthy.

I think this is overlooking the main problem, which is that as soon as things stop being designed and built for the wealthy, they stop being nice and shiny. Look at the countless city's sprung up in the Soviet Union (bar the odd one or two made shiny for propaganda purposes). Look at pretty much any area of affordable housing.

The people making the decisions stop caring about making things nice and tidy when they are designing for people who aren't likely to give them a Rolex watch as a bonus.

The difference between that and the " future city" competition, is they are building in the elimination of homelessness and poverty into the city from the ground up and not just trying to design a haven for the wealthy. Utilizing different design, building materials and methods, we can build cities for everyone and not just the "select few". The idea is to eliminate wealth inequality as part of the design itself. There is no reason why living comfortably has to be reserved for the wealthy when we now have the ability to provide an improved QoL to everyone if we just take a different approach.

The only way you will eliminate wealth equality through building new cities is if you kill the poor.

Which is one of my big worries about automation, to be fair. There's no reason to keep the poor around - they take up resources and contribute to global warming. Why would the guy who built the robots want to feed us?

Again, you are looking at trying to repeat the "do the same thing" problem. IT CANNOT STAY THE SAME IF WE HOPE TO HAVE IT ACTUALLY CHANGE. This is not designed for the poor or the wealthy, it is designed for EVERYONE. Luxury access is built in. Where is the luxury access built in to these " affordable housing" you speak of? Oh yea it was not designed luxurious, it was a lie. This is not about building affordable housing, it is about reinventing how we live. Why does anyone need or want a Rolex watch? In a future city, unimportant things like that are just novelty trinkets that anyone can reproduce copies of at will. Nonsense like that is honestly just one of the many tools wealthy attempt to prop up to give value to to try and keep power over others, but when they are made irrelevant, none of that matters really. From some of the designs I have seen, technology is made free to access by all built in and readily available. When people can 3d print whatever fashion designs they want, those who assert power over others via useless trinkets lose that power since anyone can have one that looks just like it. Copyright as currently understood will necessarily be mostly eliminated. Instead of a world ruled by the wealthy to force others to serve them and they determine value, think of it as a more open source society where anyone can edit other's designs and create at will. Look at it as more of "open source everything" once freedom of creativity and design is pryed out of the vice grips of the wealthy as a means to exclude and prevent access.

"kill the poor" certainly not, it is the wealthy that are causing the problem, not the poor. If you want to kill anyone off to get this done faster, the faster means to advance society would be to kill off the wealthy. We might even could get started today if that happened. You have this all backwards. The " People" are important to add to the creation of the necessary data to advance society. " The people" are the ones with the creative input. When you make it so the people can focus on utilizing their creativity and minds towards advancing civilization because they are not wasting all their efforts on just maintaining survival, they will be able to accomplish much more than ever possible before at a higher rate.

We have so many great minds that have come from poverty throughout our history and we can create many more faster if they actually are given the resources to do so.

If women, minorities, and children from low-income families were to invent at the same rate as white men from the top 20%, the rate of innovation in America would quadruple. Since familial wealth-not aptitude-is the biggest missing ingredient for this group, the researchers call for mentoring programs, internships, or interventions through social networks. Target low-income children who excel at math and science. Pair young girls with female inventor-mentors.

The team also found that children who grew up in places with more inventors were more likely to invent themselves. Kids raised in Silicon Valley are especially prone to patenting in computers; children from Minneapolis-where medical manufacturers are prolific-were more likely to create medical devices.

https://qz.com/1167332/data-shows-us-inventors-arent-just-good-at-science-they-come-from-rich-families/

https://www.famousscientists.org/scientists-harsh-begin/

It is the withholding of resources that stifles invention and society will advance faster once resources are better distributed.

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
Of course this is why we must deal with the wealthy before this can happen

That's my problem with this. Well, I'm also dubious about some of the specific technologies expected to get this to work, but whatever, get rid of the wealthy running everything and you'd get fancy cities built, if not with the specific wondrous technologies dreamt of today, some other fancy things.

But you need to get rid of the wealthy and wealth inequality first either way. And you've got no hope, no hope at all of that happening in our lifetimes.

Democracy IS our best tool to accomplish this, we however, have to properly utilize that tool instead of people just continuing to allow the wealthy to manipulate them into harming themselves as they have been.. for like ever.

The hope was that through education people would wise up to what is actually being done to them and put people into government positions to eliminate the wealthy's power and redistribute their wealth but this means they seriously have to stop being so dam gullible and believing their nonsense spewed from the mouths of those causing the problems like Trump. They have to actually stop Trump not give him power to harm them more. I still hold out hope though that maybe just maybe someone as bad as trump doing what he has been will finally make them wise up and actually want to work for something better.

Of course the most we can hope for in our lifetime is they start building future cities anywhere, and prevent the wealthy from destroying them to maintain their power and then they will spread from there. Then at least the future would be on a better path than it is now.

In the present, we have to fight one battle at a time, and that current battle is in the US and elsewhere to prevent the nations from going backwards instead of forwards. We have to give the Trump's the boot first as the first major obstacle, then we try to stabilize as much as possible before we can move forward.

It is people believing the BS and spending all their time bickering over irrelevant nonsense that gives the wealthy power over them, once they wise up and stop giving the people harming them power to harm them more, things can actually get better. They just have to get to that point. A few years ago I thought we were further along in that regard, but then people were stupid enough to elect someone like Trump and the rest of his goons and I realized we still have a very very long way to go to get to the point people are willing to make things better after all.

It honestly baffles me on how people can be that gullible to want someone like that to lead them. I don't get how anyone would ever, even if completely wasted drunk, think that is a remotely good idea.

Lil devils x:
Here you go again, a bunch of useless information that in no way applies to this actual proposal because you are again, looking at trying to " keep things the same as they have been". Let's start from the beginning so you can actually grasp how this works, since in order to actually understand this, you have to forget what you know about how things have been exploited and abused in the past and present.

I'm pretty sure I'm not given I have posted (or at least insinuated) that violence may be necessary to actually contribute regional change and against corporate agendas that will contribute systemic ecological damage with no actual degree of collective human good. That it is quickly getting to the point that there is a real moral argument that humans might have to pose. That being the utilitarian perspective that perhaps resources spent to greater protect human life may be better spent on safeguarding against aspects of a human-made mass extinction event and protecting against further total biodiversity loss.

Literally sacrificing resources and human happiness and people for the sake of protecting other species as the primary objective of dealing with climate change.

What I am insinuating is that maybe 12 Monkeys isn't a bad idea at this point. That maybe we have to legitimately talk and weigh up a discussion about if we cannot get certified foundations of the preservation of ecology on this planet, thatin the face of a humanity that will continue to be actively destructive and with no guarantee that climate change plus some other man-made catastrophe may not wipe ourselves out regardless ... that securing against further biodiversity loss rather than the mere protection of human life may be preferable.

It's not an argument of 'keep things the same' ... you are just not actually bothering to read arguments.

What is a " future city?"
For many years now, we have had scientists, inventors, architects all working together and separately all over the globe imagining , designing and planning cities of the future and they have come up with some fantastic, well thought out, highly efficient, self sustaining city designs that eliminate waste, pollution, poverty, and and are designed to give all humans living there access to luxuries, entertainment, education, exercise, medical care and meet all human needs. These cities are not designed for only the wealthy in mind, but for all people and are designed to be able to house vastly more millions of people than our current backwards cities are capable of. These future city competitions have been going on for a long time now, and have come up with some amazing planning.

...

We have 60 years of accessible topsoil left globally.

We will break a 2 degree mark without activity within the net 8 years.

We will have an environmental refugee crisis by 2060.

We will have a global food crisis by 2080.

We have already lost 60% of total animal biodiversity.

We have a maximum of 11 trillion tons of carbon dioxide to emit through all aspects of industrial production before we break the 2 degree limit.

We cannot rebuild every city of the planet with 11T tons.

How they have in the past and are currently building things in Dubai, Qatar or anywhere else for that matter is irrelevant here because that is not how you actually build a future city.

You're the one that brought it up. Also, might I add ... it is entirely fucking relevant. It's almost as if it underpins the reason why you can't address poverty with just money. You need to target poverty through active infrastructure development and public ownership of greater resource optimization capabilities to maximize the strategic effectiveness and compassionate use of human labour.

The evils of a Dubai are allowed and resulted from chronic exploitation of migrants from poor countries kept artificially disempowered and poverty stricken due to a lack of global infrastructure development.

Showing that these things are possible even in the harshest of climates is what purpose their example serve, nothing else about them is relevant here. In order to build a future city, you actually bring in a team of highly educated skilled robotics experts and they start by building a massive 3d printer that replicates itself. The robots will build the robots that will build your city, not slave labor. The robots will build the robots that repair your machines that build your city.

No it doesn't. It shows fuck all beyond the rest of the world is chronically fucked up.

To make a Dubai you need other people in poverty to exploit and you need a world addicted to oil.

To make a Dubai, you need millions of workers willing to work 100+ hours a week, living in shitty labour camps, with working conditions that would make Stalin blush, for $5 a day. Dubai is nothing but a meaningless, pathetic example of capitalist excess. Hollow, pointless garbage filled with hollow, pointless Saudi-backed "royalty" pulling the strings. People that will never contribute a single iota of human good for as long as they're allowed to persist, and actively making the world a shittier place to live just by existing.

That is Dubai. And for all of that fortitude you seem to level upon it will fade away under the literal sands of time by the 22nd century.

You start by importing just enough materials to build the machines that will gather the necessary waste materials needed to build your city, as most of the city is actually built from waste rather than what most consider to be valuable resources in the present as we have now come to the point where:
1) robots are cheaper than and more efficient than a Chinese worker and can repair themselves.
2) we can 3d print building materials from waste products such as air pollution, saltwater brine and garbage.
4) We now have machines that have been created to work under environments humans would find impossible, such as in space, under the ocean, in the desert or even on Mars and they will be capable of working at an efficiency rate that humans could not remotely compare to. The more machines you create to build the city, the faster it will happen.
5) The actual building structures are built by 3d printers and are lifted into place by machines. They are stackable and expandable, and can grown to meet the cities needs in the future. They can expand vertically and horizontally in order to create new housing, farms, gardens or waste recycling management facility at will. Since the cities are self sustaining, there isn't any a real demand for much in the way of outside resources once the city is established.
6) Since the cities are designed to enhance QoL for those living there, people will be able to focus more on things they actually want to focus on rather than waste all their time just trying to merely survive, they will be able to actually thrive and allow civilization to advance.
7) I am not pretending we will not have to address problems as they arise, of course we will, but this will be a much better course for mankind than the current dynamic of wealthy hoard everything to keep the people in poverty so they can have power over them and keep holding civilization back. Once we actually address the issue of the wealthy causing the problems in the first place, we can move on and actually apply resources in a manner that benefits the whole of mankind, and not used to feed their egos and whims as is the present. You have to stop trying to hold onto the past and start thinking about better ways to do things instead of trying to repeat the same mistakes that have been made repeatedly. In order to truly move forward, we have to try forward approaches instead.

For starters, automation of what? Producing what? Where are they producing it? It's a fundamental problem of investment, efficiency, trade relations and logistics. Do you know what is one of the most polluting singular elements contributing climate change? Shipping. And I'm being serious, you would meaningfully slow down carbon emissions if you just ixnayed shipping. But unfortunately you can't.

The problem is not all countries can produce the same things. Like you need high-carbon steel for multiple industrial purposes. The problem is you can't have high-carbon steel without a specific type of brown coking coal and graded pelletized iron ore. And the problem with that is that a lot of the iron that countries dig out of the ground ... well it's more costly to refine it to where it needs to be than buying high grade pelletized ore and brown coking coal from someplace like Australia.

And the brown coking coal you just simply can't get except a few locations on the planet.

This leads to a conundrum. One of them because it's incredibly expensive for ships to leave docks empty. You can't just import stuff and export nothing, unless you want to see shipping rates explode.

This is why scrap metals was the U.S.' most important export good for 40 years. It was simply a way of filling boats. The providence and massive injection of U.S. scrap metals in turn created the reason why the Chinese managed to jumpstart their recycling industries and took advantage of low-grade steel dumping on foreign markets to weaken steel competition in places like Brazil simply because the Chinese have simply a bigger shipping footprint.

It also helped them in part with generating the largest manufacturing boom ever seen in history.

International trade and global manufacturing forces are nowhere near as simple as you pretend they are.

So first of all, before you can even pretend to have some points, you have to explain to me why exactly you think automation will somehow magically cut down on emissions, where will they cut them down, and how exactly do you deal with the compleity of international trade and investment that comes with the normalization of trade relations on the basis of nations having inequal means of productivity and consumption and an inequal size of shipping 'footprint' and global presence? How do you account for imbalances and over/undercapacity of materials?

Automation can't just produce stuff out of thin air. All manufacturing needs materials, and a lot of the marketplace for those materials is shaped purely by trade dynamics that naturalistically occur through efficient supply and demand reciprocityor chained reciprocity through international agreements and trade agreements. You can't just invent entire industries, particularly in terms of global markets and consumption, out of thin air.

This is why Trump caved on Australian diplomats and their calls for allowing Australia to trade steel to the U.S.

The fact of the matter is that Australian diplomats (likely) outlined why exactly the U.S. could not produce domestically the type of steel Australia was making. Not without importing a massive amount of the type of coking coal that Australia has in reserves. The U.S. simply has no domestic access to it and it would be so artificially more expensive to try to produce that type of graded steel that it simply would be wasteful and inefficient.

Most everything you wrote would not even apply to what I am proposing here. You simply cannot keep doing the same things they have always done as you have proposed and expect a better result.

I assure you I'm not. You simply haven't been reading my posts.

Lil devils x:

In the approach I am suggesting, they will no longer be farming on the land at all, they will be in structures such as this:
image
image

Those pictures are nothing but stupid daydreaming. That is as realistic as cities on the moon.

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/d7478k/company-plans-to-build-house-from-3d-printed-salt

This is possible, but does pretty much nothing for the environment.

Provide energy for them with everything from algae to solar. Alga has the extra benefit of removing Carbon Dioxide from the air and producing oxygen.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

This is a proof of concept building that works. But is neither particularly innovative (there has been similar stuff for decades) nor can it be done in any quantity. It is too expensive.

Though these are just the tip of what we are capable of, there is so much more we can actually do now if we just choose to do so. People just need to get their priorities straight.

Yes, there are a lot of things. And there are many things being done all over the world.

Problem is, it won't be enough. It is too slow to build. To expensive. Not yet fully developed. Too ineffocoent. People do actually consider all this stuff in their climate models, And yes, humanity will get its CO2-production down to negligible and wil complete stop using fossil fuels. But roughly twenty years too late.

Who needs steel when we have this now?
https://makezine.com/2017/01/17/3d-printed-material-10x-stronger-steel/https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/06/prweb14447660.htm

Link doesn't work. But :
- materials stronger than steel are nothing special
- steel is not steel anyway
- future steel production won't use coal anymore anyway. It still requires lot of energy though.
Not sure if those new materials can do better though. ;ost likely they end up reaplacing steel for some uses but being inferior for others. Like most new materials do.

Lil devils x:

How they have in the past and are currently building things in Dubai, Qatar or anywhere else for that matter is irrelevant here because that is not how you actually build a future city. Showing that these things are possible even in the harshest of climates is what purpose their example serve, nothing else about them is relevant here. In order to build a future city, you actually bring in a team of highly educated skilled robotics experts and they start by building a massive 3d printer that replicates itself. The robots will build the robots that will build your city, not slave labor. The robots will build the robots that repair your machines that build your city.

Ok, now it is pure science fiction. Selfreplicating machines doing all the work ... pff. Certainly not in the next 150 years, if ever.

We won't have any of that when wthe climate change hits hard. We don't have the robots. We don't have selfreplication. Not even self-repair for anything that is not a rather primitive microstructure. And we very certainly don't have the kind of AI to use all of that for city building. We are not even near any of that.

You start by importing just enough materials to build the machines that will gather the necessary waste materials needed to build your city, as most of the city is actually built from waste rather than what most consider to be valuable resources in the present as we have now come to the point where:

Do you know how recycling works ?

You need to basically sort the waste into materials. Then you have to clean it. The dirt from cleaning is something you also have to process. Most of the waste will consist of compount materials you can't reperpose easily. Which means you have to destroy the structure on molecular level. Even for materials where that is not the case you have to destroy the current structure to bring it into a new form. And even if you do all that, the materials you get are not necessarily the materials you want. And every single step uses a lot of energy.

If it would be so easy to use waste as ressorce, it already would be done. Actually it is done with certain stuff. But everything else ? Making it out of waste is way more energy intensive than making it the traditional way.

Making your future cities out of waste makes them more difficult, energy-, laborintensive and expensive, not less.

1) robots are cheaper than and more efficient than a Chinese worker and can repair themselves.

Yes, they are barely cheaper. But they can't repair themself and won't be able to do so anytime soon. They also can only do repititive and straitforward stuff and need constant monitoring.

2) we can 3d print building materials from waste products such as air pollution, saltwater brine and garbage.

Maybe with a couple hundred of additional nuclear power plants.

At the moment, we have a problem based on using fossil fuels for energy. How do you figure solutions that need more energy than everything done today will help ?

We are capable of building these cities in any climate, even in the middle of the desert if necessary.

We are not able to build such cities. Sure, it is a nice fantasy. But hoping for this kind of solution it not better than wishing out problems away.

It is not just vested interest and stupid politicians holding us back. This vision is a pipe dream.

How to eliminate poverty and being able to build them anywhere, whether on earth, or elsewhere was part of many of the design competitions that came up with them. The parameters of each competition have been different, but some of these cities that have been designed by these teams of scientists can literally be built anywhere... even Mars.

With a lot of assumptions and nonexisting blackbox-technology.

People already designed cities on the Mars in the 70ies. That doesn't mean it could have been done realistically then. Or anytime soon.

Okay, this one may well rabbit-hole...

Lil devils x:
Again, you are looking at trying to repeat the "do the same thing" problem. IT CANNOT STAY THE SAME IF WE HOPE TO HAVE IT ACTUALLY CHANGE.

Which is great, but you can't just imagine a utopia and have it so. There are existing power structures with high amounts of built in inertia, there are massive rafts of basic human nature which need changing. At the end of the day, any plan must be able to be implemented in the real world or it is a fantasy.

I'm not saying you couldn't do this, just that there would be significant obstacles you appear to be overlooking.

This is not designed for the poor or the wealthy, it is designed for EVERYONE. Luxury access is built in. Where is the luxury access built in to these " affordable housing" you speak of? Oh yea it was not designed luxurious, it was a lie. This is not about building affordable housing, it is about reinventing how we live.

So you are acknowledging you'd still have "poor" and "wealthy"? So wealth inequality would still be a thing?

But my bigger issue is with the statement "designed for everyone". Because at the end of the day, somebody is putting up the money to build it, somebody is making the design decisions. I'm guessing that won't be a poor person.

Why does anyone need or want a Rolex watch? In a future city, unimportant things like that are just novelty trinkets that anyone can reproduce copies of at will. Nonsense like that is honestly just one of the many tools wealthy attempt to prop up to give value to to try and keep power over others, but when they are made irrelevant, none of that matters really. From some of the designs I have seen, technology is made free to access by all built in and readily available. When people can 3d print whatever fashion designs they want, those who assert power over others via useless trinkets lose that power since anyone can have one that looks just like it.

So much in this.

To start with, wanting shiny things is an inherent part of human nature, shared with magpies. It may be a novelty trinket to you, but it gives regular old people things to work towards. And everyone has something - whether it be a new car or a new console.

Second, 3D printing is not the same as specialised manufacturing techniques. It's not a panacea. It's good for certain things, but for a lot of things you'd have a poor facsimile of an actual quality product. Short of having every possible manufacturing technique built into the machine, 3D printing will never completely resolve the need to have specialist equipment.

Third, surely in this future city we want to be driving down waste of resources? Letting everyone have stuff made on a whim seems rather counter to this, even overlooking the fact that you've completely removed all the regular commercial structure without comment.

Fourth, my point was actually about the people working on the design project. In a world of rampant corruption and lobbying, the poor will have no input at all into the design process, and will be screwed over at every turn. And what can they do? You've taken away their work, so they don't even have the option of going on strike for better conditions any more...

"kill the poor" certainly not, it is the wealthy that are causing the problem, not the poor.

You miss the point. The people with the power, the people with the ability to make something like this happen, are either the wealthy or on very good terms with them. In the real world, where is the incentive to bring the poor along into this utopia with them, and particularly where is the incentive to treat them well when you are at it?

We have so many great minds that have come from poverty throughout our history and we can create many more faster if they actually are given the resources to do so.

I disagree with the bit that followed this. It assumes that there is an infinite number of options for invention. I see it as more of an exploration type scenario, where you have to follow certain routes. Sure, better education would increase the number of people searching for them, but I think that the "quadruple" statement is a vast over-exaggeration. But that's largely quibbling. (And don't get me wrong, I'm all for better representation in STEM, I just don't like people using exaggerated arguments and poor strategies to try and drive towards it)

As an aside, the linked articles actually provide another excuse for the rich and wealthy not to take us with them - they have the lions share of the inventors already...

To summarise, I accept that there are better ways of running the world, I just don't see a clear path to getting to them and sure as hell wouldn't trust any government in power today to move us there. Your particular vision ignores the impact on human psychology from removing any reason for these people to exist (not everyone could be a researcher). It essentially relegates the majority of the population to the role of glorified pets, to be put in a large scale hamster cage and provided for by some magnanimous entity. And to me, that seems a far more bleak future than any actual distopia.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

In the approach I am suggesting, they will no longer be farming on the land at all, they will be in structures such as this:
image
image

Those pictures are nothing but stupid daydreaming. That is as realistic as cities on the moon.

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/d7478k/company-plans-to-build-house-from-3d-printed-salt

This is possible, but does pretty much nothing for the environment.

Provide energy for them with everything from algae to solar. Alga has the extra benefit of removing Carbon Dioxide from the air and producing oxygen.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3033019/this-algae-powered-building-actually-works

This is a proof of concept building that works. But is neither particularly innovative (there has been similar stuff for decades) nor can it be done in any quantity. It is too expensive.

Though these are just the tip of what we are capable of, there is so much more we can actually do now if we just choose to do so. People just need to get their priorities straight.

Yes, there are a lot of things. And there are many things being done all over the world.

Problem is, it won't be enough. It is too slow to build. To expensive. Not yet fully developed. Too ineffocoent. People do actually consider all this stuff in their climate models, And yes, humanity will get its CO2-production down to negligible and wil complete stop using fossil fuels. But roughly twenty years too late.

Who needs steel when we have this now?
https://makezine.com/2017/01/17/3d-printed-material-10x-stronger-steel/https://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/06/prweb14447660.htm

Link doesn't work. But :
- materials stronger than steel are nothing special
- steel is not steel anyway
- future steel production won't use coal anymore anyway. It still requires lot of energy though.
Not sure if those new materials can do better though. ;ost likely they end up reaplacing steel for some uses but being inferior for others. Like most new materials do.

We do not utilize the old means of production IS the issue. Giant 3d printing utilized to create MORE 3d printers then create more machines to build so this can be done faster. We have not even begun to utilize the technology we have is why this was done so slow in the past. It can be done now on a scale we never dreamed of achieving in the past due to these breakthroughs:

Robots are cheaper than a Chinese worker and can build and repair themselves:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/self-healing-robots-soft-robotics-breakthrough
https://www.inc.com/associated-press/robots-are-replacing-human-factory-workers-at-fast-pace.html

Giant 3d printers can build faster than ever before:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/3d-printed-houses_n_5773408.html
The more printers we have the faster we can build.

Building vertically, as pictured is actually not even as difficult as china building islands, it is actually easier than you likely thought possible due to 3d printing the structures. In addition, they are no more less realistic than what has already been built and being built in Singapore, China, Qatar and Dubai. People are actually doing these things.. just not around " these parts" because many do not even realize what is now possible.

Lil devils x:

We do not utilize the old means of production IS the issue. Giant 3d printing utilized to create MORE 3d printers then create more machines to build so this can be done faster. We have not even begun to utilize the technology we have is why this was done so slow in the past. It can be done now on a scale we never dreamed of achieving in the past due to these breakthroughs:

We don't have this kind of technology. Also serial production of machines will always get slower, not faster via self-replication.

3D-Printing is good for exactly two things:
- mini series not worth building specialized machines
- certain kinds of fine structures inside other structures

Robots are cheaper than a Chinese worker and can build and repair themselves:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/self-healing-robots-soft-robotics-breakthrough

That is no working self repair mechanism. Have you actually read the study ? That is a polymer that defaults to a certain form when heated. There is no replacing of missing material, no detection of defects and it is only working for the soft polymer parts, which is not the material any of the important parts of the robot is actually made of.

To take this for self healing robots would be the same as taking a "self-healing tyre" for a self-healing/self-repairing car.

https://www.inc.com/associated-press/robots-are-replacing-human-factory-workers-at-fast-pace.html

That is true.
Also not really newsworthy if you folllowed robotics or industry news at all.

Giant 3d printers can build faster than ever before:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/3d-printed-houses_n_5773408.html
The more printers we have the faster we can build.

Oh, cheap houses made of mass produced panels. What a novel concept. It is even cement-based. I surely never have seen anything like that anywhere before./sarcasm

Building vertically, as pictured is actually not even as difficult as china building islands, it is actually easier than you likely thought possible due to 3d printing the structures.

Building vertically has nothing to do with 3D-printing. The challenges of building vertically are near exclusively about statics.

Thaluikhain:

That's unAustralian...should be a .303 and we measure in metres.

Yeah, but I know a friend with a Mossberg Patriot .30-06 so it's what came to mind. Plus the respondent is American and I know they're allergic to that stuff.

Also wouldn't work to help things, unfortunately. In no way would I grieve for Rinehart, it's just that political murders tend not to improve situations.

Ehhh, I mean it's kind of a reductive statement. Violence is a pretty effective tool, all things considered throughout history. Guns don't shoot fascists by themselves.

Disagree there. A "better future" is possible (though, depends what you mean better than), it's just not going to happen because the people who really matter don't want it to, and the people who've collectively got power aren't organised and active. But that's more or less all of history. The Roman Principiate or the Industrial Revolution or the Great Leap Forward could have been great leaps forwards, there technicality wasn't anything stopping them. But it's no surprise they weren't.

I actually think Dubai is a good example, it's a bright shining city and is great for everyone, except for all the people it's not great for who for some reason you don't see on travel shows.

I mean in a quantifiable examination of some of the predictive reports of a 3-4 degree catastrophic event. Collectively, as per the human race,and the often overlooked aspect of the total biodiversity of the planet anbd measuring from acollective idea that living in a world without a categorical extinction event that we caused is objectively better than living in one that we did cause...

I think it's fair to say a better future is impossible.

And since when has hardship ever bred anything but harder hearts? There is a greater possibility that ecological collapse simply expediates further ecological destruction. Like palm oil plantations and constantly cutting down rainforest simply to grow more palm oil plantations and transforming once verdant carbon sinks into wasteland. I like to think of a 'better future' is one where I can go on one of myt routine wanderings in the wilderness and see a planet that isn't simply dying because my species just so happens to exist.

I like the snakes, echidnas, and birds. Not so keen on kangaroos and wombats, but I like to think of myself as a good neighbour.

Catnip1024:
Okay, this one may well rabbit-hole...

Lil devils x:
Again, you are looking at trying to repeat the "do the same thing" problem. IT CANNOT STAY THE SAME IF WE HOPE TO HAVE IT ACTUALLY CHANGE.

Which is great, but you can't just imagine a utopia and have it so. There are existing power structures with high amounts of built in inertia, there are massive rafts of basic human nature which need changing. At the end of the day, any plan must be able to be implemented in the real world or it is a fantasy.

I'm not saying you couldn't do this, just that there would be significant obstacles you appear to be overlooking.

This is not designed for the poor or the wealthy, it is designed for EVERYONE. Luxury access is built in. Where is the luxury access built in to these " affordable housing" you speak of? Oh yea it was not designed luxurious, it was a lie. This is not about building affordable housing, it is about reinventing how we live.

So you are acknowledging you'd still have "poor" and "wealthy"? So wealth inequality would still be a thing?

But my bigger issue is with the statement "designed for everyone". Because at the end of the day, somebody is putting up the money to build it, somebody is making the design decisions. I'm guessing that won't be a poor person.

Why does anyone need or want a Rolex watch? In a future city, unimportant things like that are just novelty trinkets that anyone can reproduce copies of at will. Nonsense like that is honestly just one of the many tools wealthy attempt to prop up to give value to to try and keep power over others, but when they are made irrelevant, none of that matters really. From some of the designs I have seen, technology is made free to access by all built in and readily available. When people can 3d print whatever fashion designs they want, those who assert power over others via useless trinkets lose that power since anyone can have one that looks just like it.

So much in this.

To start with, wanting shiny things is an inherent part of human nature, shared with magpies. It may be a novelty trinket to you, but it gives regular old people things to work towards. And everyone has something - whether it be a new car or a new console.

Second, 3D printing is not the same as specialised manufacturing techniques. It's not a panacea. It's good for certain things, but for a lot of things you'd have a poor facsimile of an actual quality product. Short of having every possible manufacturing technique built into the machine, 3D printing will never completely resolve the need to have specialist equipment.

Third, surely in this future city we want to be driving down waste of resources? Letting everyone have stuff made on a whim seems rather counter to this, even overlooking the fact that you've completely removed all the regular commercial structure without comment.

Fourth, my point was actually about the people working on the design project. In a world of rampant corruption and lobbying, the poor will have no input at all into the design process, and will be screwed over at every turn. And what can they do? You've taken away their work, so they don't even have the option of going on strike for better conditions any more...

"kill the poor" certainly not, it is the wealthy that are causing the problem, not the poor.

You miss the point. The people with the power, the people with the ability to make something like this happen, are either the wealthy or on very good terms with them. In the real world, where is the incentive to bring the poor along into this utopia with them, and particularly where is the incentive to treat them well when you are at it?

We have so many great minds that have come from poverty throughout our history and we can create many more faster if they actually are given the resources to do so.

I disagree with the bit that followed this. It assumes that there is an infinite number of options for invention. I see it as more of an exploration type scenario, where you have to follow certain routes. Sure, better education would increase the number of people searching for them, but I think that the "quadruple" statement is a vast over-exaggeration. But that's largely quibbling. (And don't get me wrong, I'm all for better representation in STEM, I just don't like people using exaggerated arguments and poor strategies to try and drive towards it)

As an aside, the linked articles actually provide another excuse for the rich and wealthy not to take us with them - they have the lions share of the inventors already...

To summarise, I accept that there are better ways of running the world, I just don't see a clear path to getting to them and sure as hell wouldn't trust any government in power today to move us there. Your particular vision ignores the impact on human psychology from removing any reason for these people to exist (not everyone could be a researcher). It essentially relegates the majority of the population to the role of glorified pets, to be put in a large scale hamster cage and provided for by some magnanimous entity. And to me, that seems a far more bleak future than any actual distopia.

That is just it though, these plans CAN be implemented in the real world. Currently only places like Singapore and Dubai are doing so, but that does not mean that we cannot change that. No you would no longer have " poor and wealthy" that would be eliminated via access. Since access is more " open source" everyone can do what they wish with it. The primary difference will not be " have vs have nots" but creative people will necessarily create more types of items than less creative people, but less creative people will still have access to these things via copying them and that being considered a good thing, not bad.

It wont be "a poor person" , it wont be "a" person, it would be decided by democratically elected officials who are required by law to utilize teams of experts in order to accomplish common goals, not unlike what we do already to design and build schools and hospitals. Just think on a much larger scale.

People can still create and copy as they do now. They can have their shiny things, what will be lacking is exclusion from access. ANYONE will be able to create from open source. Locally here a group purchased a warehouse here and set up machinery and allowed people in the community to use it. Sort of like a " community recreation center" but instead of basketball courts and football fields, they put in die cut machines, 3d printers, welding machines, engraving machines, even professional embroidery machines. They keep adding machines to it as they accumulate them for people to go in and use. I completely love this concept as it opens access to anyone to be able to build what they wish really with minimal personal resources. Implementing this on a larger scale means you have more of these things available to use and pay for them via taxes just like we do our parks and recreational centers here. So in the end it if you see a cute watch and want to make one for yourself, you go get the patterns necessary and select it and learn how. Bored with that one and do not want it anymore? Send it to be recycled or give away or sell it. " Work" itself is changed since most menial labor is rendered obsolete. You can spend you time designing and creating your shiny things rather than doing something you hate in order to get to them. If you accumulate too many shiny things, you recycle them.

In a world of rampant corruption and lobbying" not all the world, some people have much less corruption than others because they passed laws to prevent that from happening and actually address the problem and hold people accountable rather than reward the bad guys. That is all a part of addressing the wealthy and removing their grip on democracy. Star by electing more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sander's into office, the more likely we are to pass legislation needed to block corruption, We just need a whole hell of a lot more of them in order to accomplish this. The incentive is gained via democracy. The wealthy few are physically outnumbered by the poor. We get the poor to vote in the best interests of their future through expanding education and passing anti corruption laws.

We actually need to end " white collar vs blue collar crime" and placing people above the law and put them in the same box as truly equals. We have to change the system to actually work for the people rather than the elite and this is accomplished by electing people who will do so. That is the first step to stop this whole move two steps forward ten steps backwards problem we keep creating by letting Trumps in there to break everything like a bull in a china shop once we made some baby steps towards helping the people. We have to hold the politicians, CEO's and investors who make decisions that harm the people legally and criminally responsible for their decisions. They are currently above the law and that has to stop. By electing people who will pass laws to stop this from happening, we will have actual measures in place to prevent the corruption in the present and future. I am sure there will be an " oh shat" moment for the Trumps and Shkreli's of this world and a tug of war, but if we can make just that happen, we will be able to gain ground so much faster after that by having an actual means to put a stop to it.

The designs are actually chosen via competition, they are voted on by scientists globally. The requirements for the competition mandate the elimination of poverty and inequality by giving them equal access as part of the "self sustaining" design itself. Scientists from all over the world have been voting on these designs and improving upon them for a good number of years now. The "poor" will have their poverty eliminated in the design, thus they will no longer actually be " poor". Via democracy, they will have just as much say as anyone else. My vision utilizes the fact that the poor outnumber the wealthy so can thus make democracy work in their favor if they realize how to best use the system to do so, so my first step to accomplishing this is to help teach " the masses" how to overcome the "dizinformation blitz" that is meant to keep them bickering and powerless and unite against the wealthy to do so via voting.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

We do not utilize the old means of production IS the issue. Giant 3d printing utilized to create MORE 3d printers then create more machines to build so this can be done faster. We have not even begun to utilize the technology we have is why this was done so slow in the past. It can be done now on a scale we never dreamed of achieving in the past due to these breakthroughs:

We don't have this kind of technology. Also serial production of machines will always get slower, not faster via self-replication.

3D-Printing is good for exactly two things:
- mini series not worth building specialized machines
- certain kinds of fine structures inside other structures

Robots are cheaper than a Chinese worker and can build and repair themselves:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/self-healing-robots-soft-robotics-breakthrough

That is no working self repair mechanism. Have you actually read the study ? That is a polymer that defaults to a certain form when heated. There is no replacing of missing material, no detection of defects and it is only working for the soft polymer parts, which is not the material any of the important parts of the robot is actually made of.

To take this for self healing robots would be the same as taking a "self-healing tyre" for a self-healing/self-repairing car.

https://www.inc.com/associated-press/robots-are-replacing-human-factory-workers-at-fast-pace.html

That is true.
Also not really newsworthy if you folllowed robotics or industry news at all.

Giant 3d printers can build faster than ever before:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/3d-printed-houses_n_5773408.html
The more printers we have the faster we can build.

Oh, cheap houses made of mass produced panels. What a novel concept. It is even cement-based. I surely never have seen anything like that anywhere before./sarcasm

Building vertically, as pictured is actually not even as difficult as china building islands, it is actually easier than you likely thought possible due to 3d printing the structures.

Building vertically has nothing to do with 3D-printing. The challenges of building vertically are near exclusively about statics.

They are not just " self healing" they can fix each other:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490001/emerging-technology/in-big-step-for-robotics-one-robot-repairs-another-in-space.html
I just used the healing as one example of how they can be repaired without humans having to do it for them. The point is, we have moved into a time where we do not have to use people as slaves or mistreat them to get these things done quickly.

Singapore is already starting to Build 3d printed " sky scrapers" for housing, we just need to understand we can utilize this for so much more than has been currently done.
https://govinsider.asia/smart-gov/coming-soon-to-singapore-3d-printed-houses/

No this is not on the moon, it is in Singapore:
image
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5063891/plants-invade-singapore-skyscraper
image
image

These thing are possible, we just have to choose to focus our collective efforts on doing this.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Thaluikhain:

That's unAustralian...should be a .303 and we measure in metres.

Yeah, but I know a friend with a Mossberg Patriot .30-06 so it's what came to mind. Plus the respondent is American and I know they're allergic to that stuff.

Also wouldn't work to help things, unfortunately. In no way would I grieve for Rinehart, it's just that political murders tend not to improve situations.

Ehhh, I mean it's kind of a reductive statement. Violence is a pretty effective tool, all things considered throughout history. Guns don't shoot fascists by themselves.

Disagree there. A "better future" is possible (though, depends what you mean better than), it's just not going to happen because the people who really matter don't want it to, and the people who've collectively got power aren't organised and active. But that's more or less all of history. The Roman Principiate or the Industrial Revolution or the Great Leap Forward could have been great leaps forwards, there technicality wasn't anything stopping them. But it's no surprise they weren't.

I actually think Dubai is a good example, it's a bright shining city and is great for everyone, except for all the people it's not great for who for some reason you don't see on travel shows.

I mean in a quantifiable examination of some of the predictive reports of a 3-4 degree catastrophic event. Collectively, as per the human race,and the often overlooked aspect of the total biodiversity of the planet anbd measuring from acollective idea that living in a world without a categorical extinction event that we caused is objectively better than living in one that we did cause...

I think it's fair to say a better future is impossible.

And since when has hardship ever bred anything but harder hearts? There is a greater possibility that ecological collapse simply expediates further ecological destruction. Like palm oil plantations and constantly cutting down rainforest simply to grow more palm oil plantations and transforming once verdant carbon sinks into wasteland. I like to think of a 'better future' is one where I can go on one of myt routine wanderings in the wilderness and see a planet that isn't simply dying because my species just so happens to exist.

I like the snakes, echidnas, and birds. Not so keen on kangaroos and wombats, but I like to think of myself as a good neighbour.

image
Although we need to approach everything we do critically and with much planning and foresight, giving up entirely is simply not acceptable.

I see what you are doing here. Get rid of the people and keep the snakes. :p

Lil devils x:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490001/emerging-technology/in-big-step-for-robotics-one-robot-repairs-another-in-space.html

That is a human-remote-controlled arm applying a spare part.

Singapore is already starting to Build 3d printed " sky scrapers" for housing, we just need to understand we can utilize this for so much more than has been currently done.
https://govinsider.asia/smart-gov/coming-soon-to-singapore-3d-printed-houses/

Please explain me how this is fundamentally different or better than this
image
aside from the buzzword "3D-printer" and 45 years of material science

No this is not on the moon, it is in Singapore:
image
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5063891/plants-invade-singapore-skyscraper
image
image

These thing are possible, we just have to choose to focus our collective efforts on doing this.

When i said the above pictures were pure fantasy, i did not mean having some green garden on top of houses. I meant the size, the static problems, the grazing and the idea that those are self-sufficient.

What Singapoore does there is having a couple of gardens on roofs and balconees. Because people like gardens.

Also the first picture building does not even yet exist. It is only concept art.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490001/emerging-technology/in-big-step-for-robotics-one-robot-repairs-another-in-space.html

That is a human-remote-controlled arm applying a spare part.

Singapore is already starting to Build 3d printed " sky scrapers" for housing, we just need to understand we can utilize this for so much more than has been currently done.
https://govinsider.asia/smart-gov/coming-soon-to-singapore-3d-printed-houses/

Please explain me how this is fundamentally different or better than this
image
aside from the buzzword "3D-printer" and 45 years of material science

No this is not on the moon, it is in Singapore:
image
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5063891/plants-invade-singapore-skyscraper
image
image

These thing are possible, we just have to choose to focus our collective efforts on doing this.

When i said the above pictures were pure fantasy, i did not mean having some green garden on top of houses. I meant the size, the static problems, the grazing and the idea that those are self-sufficient.

What Singapoore does there is having a couple of gardens on roofs and balconees. Because people like gardens.

Here, In Texas, where I constantly woke up with cattle in my yard at my parents house from neighboring farms, I have seen "indoor grazing" during times of drought here at my Neighbor Toms massive warehouse style greenhouse barns he built. He had it hooked up to an indoor watering system and would grow one greenhouse while they grazed in another. The indoor fields replenished themselves so much faster than their outdoor counterparts they seem to be much more efficient than the outdoor grazing most commonly used now. I see the " vertical grazing" as promoted in their design simply as system similar to his but stacked vertically rather than spread out across his land with waste and water recycling built in. I am not seeing this as " non doable " as you are and I have been around cattle my entire life.

Building vertical gardens can be utilized to grow our food, not just to look pretty. It is a matter of designing and building in the functions needed rather than trying to add them as an afterthought. This is why I do not think they should waste time trying to upgrade existing structures, but instead recycle the materials from the existing structures to build new ones that perform the needed functions.

The example of Singapore utilizing 3d printing to speed up the building of affordable housing is just showing that they will be able to build vertically using this method. What I am stating, is why make crappy housing that way when you can build luxury housing with the built in amenities that way, for EVERYONE as they have designed in the future cities competition winners instead of focusing on doing the least you can do? Making something better means actually trying to make it better rather than just repeating the same old mistakes.

I am not going to go re look up and try to find all the ample information I have read on the self sustaining cities design competitions over the years, as you can look up much of that on your own to read at your leisure and it is abundant, however, the "idea" I get that these are self sustaining is that is part of the design competition parameters that teams of scientists, engineers, architects have been doing for a good time now. It is part of the entire concept for " future cities" to begin with. I used to take part in these with my gifted and talented program at school and the actual professional teams of scientists have come up with some genuinely amazing plans here. When I say " future cities" that is specifically what I am referring to.

The ones you see above are just more of the bubbly style I prefer:
https://newatlas.com/vca-farmscrapers-asian-cairns/26570/

The bubble like buildings are just my preference, however there are plenty that are not bubbly like I prefer:
image
https://www.archdaily.com/611976/vincent-callebaut-masterplan-predicts-future-of-self-sustaining-cities
http://dubailand-property.com/self-sustaining-community-within-city-dubais-sustainable-city/

Lil devils x:

Here, In Texas, where I constantly woke up with cattle in my yard at my parents house from neighboring farms, I have seen "indoor grazing" during times of drought here at my Neighbor Toms massive warehouse style greenhouse barns he built. He had it hooked up to an indoor watering system and would grow one greenhouse while they grazed in another. The indoor fields replenished themselves so much faster than their outdoor counterparts they seem to be much more efficient than the outdoor grazing most commonly used now. I see the " vertical grazing" as promoted in their design simply as system similar to his but stacked vertically rather than spread out across his land with waste and water recycling built in. I am not seeing this as " non doable " as you are and I have been around cattle my entire life.

So you do think holding cattle on platforms many hundred meters in the air, suspendet by a steel skelleton and/or cables and thus moving with the wind is a particularly good idea ?

And yes, plants can grow quite fast if they have water and sunlight. But doing all this stuff vertically means pumping a lot of water and, even more damaging, that all those platforms compete with each other for sunlight. Building houses vetically saves space, yes. Building gardens atop of each other makes each garden less efficient for growing anything. Es?peccially if you want to produce a lot of biomass.

I am not going to go re look up and try to find all the ample information I have read on the self sustaining cities design competitions over the years, as you can look up much of that on your own to read at your leisure and it is abundant, however, the "idea" I get that these are self sustaining is that is part of the design competition parameters that teams of scientists, engineers, architects have been doing for a good time now. It is part of the entire concept for " future cities" to begin with. I used to take part in these with my gifted and talented program at school and the actual professional teams of scientists have come up with some genuinely amazing plans here. When I say " future cities" that is specifically what I am referring to.

There are climate neutral houses and those self sufficient regarding energy (meaning electricity and heating). That is realistic while not yet ready for mass production. There is no realistic concept with self-sufficiency that also includes food and even remotely matches the population density of a city.

The ones you see above are just more of the bubbly style I prefer:
https://newatlas.com/vca-farmscrapers-asian-cairns/26570/

- this model does not actually include how those pebbles are used. Which means you can't take even half the statements about sustainability serious.
- This was done by architects alone, not in collaboration with experts of renewable energy or agriculture or waste processing. I am sceptical about any claims about those features.
- It does not claim that it can provide the food for its inhabitants.
- The bubbles are claimed to be fit for whatever use, but are only supported by the rather thin central pillar. In many of the pictures they look pretty empty. I am curious how much weight they can support additionally. (And youmight be surprised how many skycrapers have unusuably/barely usuable sections that don't allow for any significant interior and get still actually built)

Overall i am not sure how serious this proposal actually is and how much it is just a sketch of an idea.

The bubble like buildings are just my preference, however there are plenty that are not bubbly like I prefer:
image
https://www.archdaily.com/611976/vincent-callebaut-masterplan-predicts-future-of-self-sustaining-cities
http://dubailand-property.com/self-sustaining-community-within-city-dubais-sustainable-city/

Now those two seem doable.

One of the main differences is in height, The next difference is that at least the Italian one is about the use of a concrete known place and the Dubai one seems also to have its location already fixed while the Cairn thing does not.

But in all of those examples "self-sufficient" only means energy, mostly via solar panels. It never means "food". The Dubai one has 3ha community garden for the whole city which is less than the central shopping district, while the Italian one does not grow any food.

Not building particularly high also means more sunlight per sqare meter buiding interior which means it gets easier to energy-self-sufficient this way.

Satinavian:

Lil devils x:

Here, In Texas, where I constantly woke up with cattle in my yard at my parents house from neighboring farms, I have seen "indoor grazing" during times of drought here at my Neighbor Toms massive warehouse style greenhouse barns he built. He had it hooked up to an indoor watering system and would grow one greenhouse while they grazed in another. The indoor fields replenished themselves so much faster than their outdoor counterparts they seem to be much more efficient than the outdoor grazing most commonly used now. I see the " vertical grazing" as promoted in their design simply as system similar to his but stacked vertically rather than spread out across his land with waste and water recycling built in. I am not seeing this as " non doable " as you are and I have been around cattle my entire life.

So you do think holding cattle on platforms many hundred meters in the air, suspendet by a steel skelleton and/or cables and thus moving with the wind is a particularly good idea ?

And yes, plants can grow quite fast if they have water and sunlight. But doing all this stuff vertically means pumping a lot of water and, even more damaging, that all those platforms compete with each other for sunlight. Building houses vetically saves space, yes. Building gardens atop of each other makes each garden less efficient for growing anything. Es?peccially if you want to produce a lot of biomass.

I am not going to go re look up and try to find all the ample information I have read on the self sustaining cities design competitions over the years, as you can look up much of that on your own to read at your leisure and it is abundant, however, the "idea" I get that these are self sustaining is that is part of the design competition parameters that teams of scientists, engineers, architects have been doing for a good time now. It is part of the entire concept for " future cities" to begin with. I used to take part in these with my gifted and talented program at school and the actual professional teams of scientists have come up with some genuinely amazing plans here. When I say " future cities" that is specifically what I am referring to.

There are climate neutral houses and those self sufficient regarding energy (meaning electricity and heating). That is realistic while not yet ready for mass production. There is no realistic concept with self-sufficiency that also includes food and even remotely matches the population density of a city.

The ones you see above are just more of the bubbly style I prefer:
https://newatlas.com/vca-farmscrapers-asian-cairns/26570/

- this model does not actually include how those pebbles are used. Which means you can't take even half the statements about sustainability serious.
- This was done by architects alone, not in collaboration with experts of renewable energy or agriculture or waste processing. I am sceptical about any claims about those features.
- It does not claim that it can provide the food for its inhabitants.
- The bubbles are claimed to be fit for whatever use, but are only supported by the rather thin central pillar. In many of the pictures they look pretty empty. I am curious how much weight they can support additionally. (And youmight be surprised how many skycrapers have unusuably/barely usuable sections that don't allow for any significant interior and get still actually built)

Overall i am not sure how serious this proposal actually is and how much it is just a sketch of an idea.

The bubble like buildings are just my preference, however there are plenty that are not bubbly like I prefer:
image
https://www.archdaily.com/611976/vincent-callebaut-masterplan-predicts-future-of-self-sustaining-cities
http://dubailand-property.com/self-sustaining-community-within-city-dubais-sustainable-city/

Now those two seem doable.

One of the main differences is in height, The next difference is that at least the Italian one is about the use of a concrete known place and the Dubai one seems also to have its location already fixed while the Cairn thing does not.

But in all of those examples "self-sufficient" only means energy, mostly via solar panels. It never means "food". The Dubai one has 3ha community garden for the whole city which is less than the central shopping district, while the Italian one does not grow any food.

Not building particularly high also means more sunlight per sqare meter buiding interior which means it gets easier to energy-self-sufficient this way.

Self sustaining does include food when you are discussing " future cities" in addition to the actual building being used to produce food itself. "farmscrapers" are specifically designed to address food production, and the Asian Cairns buildings proposed for food production in Shenzhen were designed by an architecture firm, however this architect is the lead architect and is considered in the top 50 green architects in the world. Although it does appear he is the primary architect there, he lists other team members:
Benoit Patterlini, Paris, France
Emilie Diers, Paris, France
Fabrice Zaini, Paris, France
Florence Mauny, Paris, France
Frederique Beck, Paris, France
Jiao Yang Huang, Paris, France
Maguy Delrieu, Paris, France
Marco Conti Sikic, Paris, France
Olivier Sylvain, Paris, France
Philippe Steels, Brussels, Belgium
Vincent Callebaut, Paris, France
Volker Ehrlich, Paris France

As well as numerous collaborators so I would not automatically assume he did not consult with engineers on a project as that would be extremely unprofessional. I understand your concerns as well, " cows in the sky" seems too fantastic to be true and to look as fantastic as this would be amazing. I agree with the concerns, especially being from Tornado alley as all I can imagine is cownados flying everywhere. I love the bubbly design myself, though in reality I would feel "safer" in something more tornado resistant, especially given the effects of climate change very well may bring us tornados where we are not used to having them, as well as extreme hurricanes, earthquakes volcanos and so much more. The future could very well turn out to look like a world hidden in a tornado bunker than my pretty bubbles in the sky. Either way, we need to get moving one way or the other to maintain maximum survival.

EDIT: It should be noted though that indoor farming utilizes less water and has less waste than outdoor farming and the runoff is recycled into the system. The not only recycle the rainwater that outdoor farming does not, it requires less water used to water crops due to less water loss due to runoff and evaporation. The water is constantly reused in indoor farming rather than lost as it is in outdoor farming.

Lil devils x:

image
Although we need to approach everything we do critically and with much planning and foresight, giving up entirely is simply not acceptable.

I see what you are doing here. Get rid of the people and keep the snakes. :p

Since when have I actually written we should 'give up'? Secondly, yes. The fact of the matter is climate change debate has been focussed on human impact via the environment, and I think it's enirely unhelpful to ignore, and that there is a solid moral argument, that whether humans should sacrifice their own seurity and happiness in the faceof an ecological collapse and predicate ideas of human survival exclusively in terms of protecting what biodiversity that remains as opposed to protecting hauman happiness.

A holistic and longterm look of human suffering, and the moral justifications of instead of simply trying to secure human happiness, we should secure longterm viability of Earth.

The Earth will not magically improve. We will not have as if some smooth transition back to Holocene-esque conditions.

We need to be realistic and start talking in the time frames of millenia and perhaps entire epochs.

Which is why I find your uncritical idea of some utopian future so dismally maladjusted, so blatantly unrealistic (on every level), and damn right cruel to pretend as if there will be magically no hardship, horror, and abject suffering if we simply built fucking stupid 1950s esque Moon-colony style artworks and presenting them as worthy of actual consideration.

Believe it or not, the moral and just action in the face of climate change might be incredibly horrible. That it might require active sacrifice. Yes, there is a real argument whether we need to be brutal in the face of protecting total ecology, no matter how much temporal human suffering it may cause. Because objectively speaking even without deforestation, a 2* rise still means 40% of the Amazon gone.

The problem of the climate change debate is painting it exclusively in termsof impact, and particularly that of impacts on humans, is forgetting the very real factor of and it will continue to be a thing for a ridiculously long time.

And in the face of such an unfathomable stretch of time, active sacrifice and brutal policing of human consumption is nothing at all.

With a catastrophic 3* rise event, someplace like Australia will need to relocate most of its people from where they currently live and itwill needto do this over period of decades. In the face ofa total economic collapse on a global level. Sydney will be lost to persistent, devastating supercells thatwill grow in intensity all coastal points north of it. Wholesale land will be lost. People will be dropping dead in the streets of Melbourne from heat stress.

The political challenges of this alone meaning a very end to the concept of Federation itself as states themselves will cease to function. It is going to require Tito-levels of inspiring (successive) leadership capabilities to stop balkanization on its own. And that's a stable democracy that has never suffered a (real) civil war. What do you think will happen to a U.S. when by 2100 California, Florida and Texas requires mass evacuation?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here