[Carlhole]

Arcology, a portmanteau of the words "architecture" and "ecology,"[1] is a set of architectural design principles aimed toward the design of enormous habitats (hyperstructures) of extremely high human population density. These largely hypothetical structures, called "arcologies," would contain a variety of residential and commercial facilities and minimize individual human environmental impact. They are often portrayed as self-contained or economically self-sufficient.

The concept has been primarily popularized by architect Paolo Soleri, and appears commonly in science fiction.

[hillsidedigger]

I think people would not do well living like bees in a hive.

[rangerone314]

I think people would not do well living like bees in a hive.

One could argue they already live like bees in a hive in many places... at least an arcology would contain a tad bit more nature, even if a bit contrived...

[Lore]

Had humanity aspired to live in designs such as those of Paolo Soleri, much of the impact on our environment may have been muted today.

Unfortunately the Arcosonti Project is just a mirage of a promise that might have been.

www.arcosanti.org/

[lordoverhack]

Instead we allowed ourselves to be imprisoned in suburban ghettos.

What a f#cking tragedy.

I really don't see much of a difference in the long run, yes, it might be a noble experiment, but people don't do well when confined to living in areas that resemble ant colonies. The communities would be limited to downward and upward growth, and there is only so much which is manageable before you reach beyond the limitations of the original design and must consider safety. As we watch our own society continuing to sustain break neck growth rates, we can be certain that they will not stop the boundless procreation which led to the resource depletion issues that we have now, and over a few hundred years would lead to the same problems, but in a new setting.

What we have to do, is fix the mindset of unlimited growth possibilities. Until we teach the rest of humanity that unlimited growth is not possible, and start reversing growth, than it is pointless to try to strive to reach the stars.

We have exceeded the carrying capacity of our current habitat, and instead of looking for ways to continue boundless growth, we must decrease our numbers drastically. If you have suggestions on how to do this, I would love to hear them.

[Ludi]

I don't think I've seen much attention paid here to arcology...

Not in so many words, but I've posted about

http://www.solviva.com/

which is based on prior work like that by the folks at the place pstarr knows about but I can't remember right now....

[Ludi]

Thanks, that's the one.

[hillsidedigger]

I would like to see more and larger wild reserve areas in the world where people only occasionally visit and not in motor vehicles.

A good example of what I'm referring to is the fenced 9 million acres of Kruger National Park in South Africa.

A 90 million acre such area (which currently has very sparse human habitations) known as the 'Buffalo Commons' has been proposed for the Western Great Plains of the United States extending across and including parts of Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, the Dakota's and Montana. Obviously, several major highways and rail-lines cross that corridor and would need to be thoroughly fenced or walled (as would the perimeter) and with wildlife underpasses.

[lordoverhack]

I Don't agree at all. Historically the most valuable real estate in the country has been along 5th Avenue in New York City.

Perhaps so, but how sustainable is that? It works for now because the rats have access to the resources to make it habitable, but without those resources they will have to go elsewhere no?

An elevator is safer than a highway.

Again, correct, but an elevator can only go so high before it exceeds its limitations.

Encourage death? I would prefer to legalize drugs and proscribe their use in a controlled and supportive environment. People will take care of their own culling.

I fail to see your point. This will not fix anything, and in most cases would just make the situation worse, and in response to your statement, death is a natural part of life, the cycle of keeping 90 year old men alive with heart replacement surgery on the other hand, is not. We need to stop enabling those who are have exceeded their usefulness from continuing to drain what few resources we have left. If we don't, then eventually everyone will be culled because they didn't know when to say enough is enough.

[Ludi]

the cycle of keeping 90 year old men alive with heart replacement surgery on the other hand, is not.

How many 90 year old men get heart replacement surgeries? Not very damn many. Irrelevant, really.

[waegari]

Instead we allowed ourselves to be imprisoned in suburban ghettos.

What a f#cking tragedy.

I really don't see much of a difference in the long run, yes, it might be a noble experiment, but people don't do well when confined to living in areas that resemble ant colonies.

Not just that. If indeed this had to be a viable solution for mankind, it would mean an incredible array of building projects first. This in itself would mean another devastating onslaught on the world's resources and the world's energy capabilities.

In all, this sort of project may be very interesting from an architectural/theoretical point of view, but it only works for a relatively small number of people.

[Ludi]

In all, this sort of project may be very interesting from an architectural/theoretical point of view, but it only works for a relatively small number of people.

Could it not be implemented by some people, though, as part of a large range of solutions? There doesn't have to be One Grand Solution, does there?

People are going to be building houses for awhile probably. Could they not make them to house several families as part of a community which includes, say, food gardens also?

[lordoverhack]

the cycle of keeping 90 year old men alive with heart replacement surgery on the other hand, is not.

How many 90 year old men get heart replacement surgeries? Not very damn many. Irrelevant, really.

It was meant as a case to amplify my point. My only assumption, is that you think that curbing the population is not necessary. So, I must assume that you are a cornucopian. Which given the nature of most of the people on this forum, at least those of whose posts I have read, would lead me to believe this would not be the case, so I have to wonder how you can think that continuing to to treat people past their useful life has any benefit to mankind?

[Ludi]

My only assumption, is that you think that curbing the population is not necessary. So, I must assume that you are a cornucopian.

Now that's one of the funniest things I've seen here in a couple weeks!



My only assumption is that you are an ignorant boob.

[JJ]

I think people would not do well living like bees in a hive.

they seem to manage in Manila (but not necessarily "doing well")

[lordoverhack]

My only assumption, is that you think that curbing the population is not necessary. So, I must assume that you are a cornucopian.

Now that's one of the funniest things I've seen here in a couple weeks!



My only assumption is that you are an ignorant boob.

Why are you name calling? If this is something that is allowed, I admit I am new to the site, and perhaps that is accepted behavior by the members, I don't know. I hope not.

What have you added to this conversation, other than to call people names and to insult what they say? So why did you step into this conversation if you weren't going to add anything relevant, I don't know the member structure or whose who, but you are demonstrating all the classic signs of a forum troll.

Please stop. This behavior helps nothing and does not allow for intellectual discourse. If you have something relevant or would like to debate the merits of what I have to say, I will be happy to oblige you, but please respect me as well as yourself.