From: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM (Jon Roland)
Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban,talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Main Impediment to Survival
Date: 7 Sep 1992 21:44:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: starflight.corp.sun.com

In article 10329@ncsu.edu, hess@stat.ncsu.edu (George Hess) writes:
>   The overall tone of Mr. Roland's article is that people are
>NOT part of nature and have no place on the planet, save in some
>hermetically sealed cities.  He would move everyone into these
>cities and allow "perhaps for occasional visits [to the surface]
>under strictly controlled circumstances".  These are frightening 
>suggestions.
>
>   While I agree that humans are making a fine mess of things in
>the world, I philosophically disagree with the idea that people
>are not a part of nature.  In fact, I would argue that that's
>exactly the idea that got us into the sad state of ecological
>affairs in which we currently find ourselves.  Once we make the
>step of disassociating ourselves from nature, it's easy to think
>of the world as both a supply of commodities for the taking and
>a limitless sink for our waste products.  The starship city
>solution is no different.

This is an example of an attempt to discuss the psychology of people
and how it affects their willingness to exploit earth resources
destructively that results in nonsensical use of language. The 
totality of observable phenomena ARE nature, by definition, and
therefore any observable phenomenon, including humanity, is a part
of nature. It is not "connectedness" to nature, or the lack thereof,
which affects attitudes to resource exploitation, but the presence
or lack of foresight and the willingness or lack thereof to sacrifice
for the good of future generations.

>... leaving .578
>square miles of land for 1,000,000 people.  While it is true that
>one could pack 1,000,000 people into such a space (at about 17
>square feet per person), that seems less than pleasant.  Sure, you
>could go vertical...

It is contemplated that most if not all of the proposed starship
cities would be build underground, leaving only a few recreational
facilities on the surface to support access and supervised use of
surface attractions, and it is those facilities that would occupy
LESS than 1 percent of the Earth's surface (but not just land area).
A typical city might be an oblate spheroid about 2 km in diameter
and .35 km high. Some might be stationed on the surface or the
bottoms of oceans, but maintenance costs would be lower for underground
sites.

I also do not advocate that we build 1 million such cities. I am only
say that we could. I would personally prefer that we not build more
than about 200 of them, housing about 500,000 persons each. A world
population of 100 million is enough. I also propose that they be more
spacious than the minimal spaciousness I describe for purposes of
feasibility planning. Actually, people would have more private space
than they do in many cities today.

>   There is also no discussion of the energy supply for these
>cities.  Is the reason all the people must leave the surface so
>that we can cover it with solar colletors?  Or will we simply drain
>the oceans for our fussion reactors.  What will 1,000,000,000,000
>people eat?  What will they drink?

In other postings I have discussed that geothermal energy would be
sufficient. These cities would have a low-energy lifestyle, and all
materials would be recycled. Everything built would be designed to
be as long-lasting as possible.

>   In summary, I think this is exactly the kind of technocratic
>thinking that got us where we are today.  Technology is not going
>to bail us out this time.  In one area I agree with Mr. Roland - 
>we are on a crash course with disaster.  Only a major change in attitude,
>particularly in the manner in which humans relate to the rest of
>the planet, will allow us to come even close to solving our
>problems.  

It takes more than just a change of attitude, or the adjusting of some
parameters like population size or rate or growth, rates of consumption 
and resuse, transportation efficiency, or whatever. We cannot adjust
those parameters without making fundamental structural changes in the
physical infrastructure on which our civilization and economy is based,
and those changes are most easily understood in terms of the starship
city paradigm. In the final analysis, we are constrained by the laws of
thermodynamics, which puts bounds on the feasibility of recycling when
materials are used in an open, scattered system.

Reality is not designed for our comfort or convenience. It is up to us to
see things as they are and adapt the best we can, and stop trying to
imagine we can always impose our preferences on the natural order. That
is the kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141

Newsgroups: alt.planning.urban