Best way of making living space

Of the previously mentioned ways which is best for maximizeing human living space while maintaining quality? Then post below the reason why you think so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Space Colonies. Its the way forward

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is an "arcology"?

Why pick one? Perhaps all apply...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ever play Sim city 2000?

They are big apartment like structures...I think they house everything people need inside them.

 

Oh, a biosphere. Like what those scientists tried (I think) in the desert, but couldn't really get a stable environment going in their habitat.

Basically, I think the earth based options (arcologies, seasteads, underground) don't really change the picture of living space as it's still connected to the earth and we can't build and populate space colonies fast enough to make an appreciable difference.

 

I think arcology would wind up being the wrong way to go. Sooner or later these things deteriorate. You wind up with an oversized slum.

I think I would have to agree with the space colony. Not only for giving us a reason to get into space but to continue to develop needed technology and resources.

 

"Arcology is Paolo Soleri's concept of cities which embody the fusion of architecture
with ecology. The arcology concept proposes a highly integrated and compact
three-dimensional urban form that is the opposite of urban sprawl with its inherently
wasteful consumption of land, energy, time and human resources. An arcology would
need about two percent as much land as a typical city of similar population. Arcology
eliminates the automobile from inside the city and reserves it for use outside the city.
Walking would be the main form of transportation inside an arcology. The
miniaturization of the city enables radical conservation of land, energy and resources.
Arcology would rely as much as possible on the sun, the wind and other renewable
energy so as to reduce pollution and dependence on fossil fuels. Arcology needs less
energy per capita thus making recycling and the use of solar energy more feasible
than in present cities."

Source:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arcology/

 

BatM has got the right idea... do all.

You can visit Arcosanti - Paolo Soleri's Arizona experiment. It is pretty cool. I think they have architects live and learn there or something like that...

 

An arcology dosn't need to be self sufficent. Make a giant apartment complex fused with commercial buildings and you have one. Palo Soleri came up with the theory and has so far started construction of 1.

For reference most buildings seen in the movie "Blade Runner" were arcologies.

 

space colonies. it's about time we got people up into space again.. build huge complexes on the moon or something!

there used to be a simcity-like game about that.. about 10 years ago

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

does anyone remember it's name?

 

Remember, a space station is extremely expensive to construct and manage. It is also very dangerous to live on.

 

I like the idea of floating cities but then look at Atlantis

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That may become less of a problem after nanotechnology takes off.

 

Nanotech dosnt do squat against a fireball 100 feet across blowing you to atoms.

Atlantis wasnt supposed to float. It was supposed to be an island.

 

I'm not sure how feasible it would be, but I'd like to see us move to space colonies in the future. We'd learn so much by being there 24 hours a day instead of making "short" trips.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, it might reassemble most things if you weren't completely blown to atoms (Borg technology

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

Maybe you'd lose a few workers, but the colony would go on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Isn't that what they're doing on the International Space Station?

 

If you are in zero-g for more than 9 months you risk never being able to come back. Your body would have adapted too much to the local conditions. 9 months is a short trip.

About nanotech. Nanites would be destroyed if left in heavy radiation for too long. Also it would need your entire unharmed brain to ressurect your personality and memory. Otherwise you will basically be a fetus in an adult body.

 

Good point about zero-g. However, nano-technology and robotics might be the answer to that. They can reconfigure the body as needed to the local conditions.

Good point about nanites. However, the nanites would be self-replicating and, thus, might be able to rebuild themselves from the dead old ones (particularly if they can get infusions of new nanites from outside the blast area). Also, the goal would be to rebuild the colony, not save individuals, so the loss of some people would be expected.

 

I think that artificial gravity is a much better answer than messing up with human body.