we need arcologies if we want to protect the environment from ourselves.
There is the critical misunderstanding of human life as district and removed from all other terrestrial life, and that's what will kill us all.
You can't take people out of nature. Not in any practical sense. Arcologies are a neat sci-fi concept, but they are still just "how do we remake Earth independent of Earth?" And - by and large - you can't.
If we could put all of humanity into a box, put everything humans want and need into that box, and this box doesn’t negatively affect the environment in any way, would that not be good for Earth?
It would literally be Earth. We are as much a part of the environment as anything else.
If we can't do it across the existing planet, how the hell do we expect to do it in an artificial subset of the planet?
Humans could live on the land in tune with nature but where would be the advance medical care, where would be the education, where would be the systems in place that stop idiots from starting massive forest fires or flooding valleys by diverting water?
Humans are nature. We are not living sustainably, but nothing ever truly does. The natural balance of a given region is routinely thrown off by environmental, population, and evolutionary changes.
We're not striving for global preservation. Life will still be here when we're gone. We're striving for self preservation. And an arcology doesn't get us there any more than a space ship to Mars.
A group of living things banding together into a mega organism is an evolutionary strategy that usually occurs in response to sustained predation by other species. That’s true all the way up from single-cell lifeforms to human beings. I’m not sure there’s a reason to repeat that pattern at one more level of abstraction. You don’t have to go full anprim to have urban design which is ecologically aware or to avoid chopping down the lungs of our planet for extra space to put caged animals.
I’m confused by your assertion that we would have access to nature, but wouldn’t touch it. What does that mean? We would breathe the air. We would drink the water. It’s all connected.
If we could put all of humanity into a box, put everything humans want and need into that box, and this box doesn’t negatively affect the environment in any way
That's a whole lot of currently implausible "ifs" that in the meantime don't quite seem to justify "what if society, but things in cool compact boxes that aren't viable without speculative tech?"
True, though seeking to create something (almost) self-sufficient will at least get part of the equation right, which is building a circular economy around more local production and longer-lasting, indefinitely maintainable infrastructure. Going to the extreme is less efficient and more wasteful (short of having Star Trek replicators), of course.
Under capitalism, sure, though that also applies to non-Elysium. It's happening right now, where our system creates an exterior that's right in the back yard of the upper classes, but can still be sufficiently isolated via propaganda and dreams and, eventually, moving to a less destroyed place. The fundamental driver is the material conditions created by the economic system, and capitalism will create an exterior regardless of whether production occurs in theoretically self-sufficient eco pods or wholesale clearing of jungle to build a railroad through appropriated land in Chiapas.
The fundamental driver is the material conditions created by the economic system
No argument there.
capitalism will create an exterior regardless of whether production occurs in theoretically self-sufficient eco pods or wholesale clearing of jungle to build a railroad through appropriated land in Chiapas.
True. But even the old Soviets weren't above externalizing their waste. Hell, until fairly recently breathing in Beijing was like smoking two packs a day.
Capitalism isn't the only incentive to externalize. And arcologies don't stop people from externalizing. They just create an (ideally) impermeable barrier between regions.
No argument here! I'm curious about what you're thinking about at standing out for arcologies. I'm sympathetic but am not sure what is really all that different from the status quo.
I think the only arcology we can create, in any practical sense, is Earth itself. Anything less just means creating a barrier beyond which we dump all our excess waste
There is the critical misunderstanding of human life as district and removed from all other terrestrial life, and that's what will kill us all.
You can't take people out of nature. Not in any practical sense. Arcologies are a neat sci-fi concept, but they are still just "how do we remake Earth independent of Earth?" And - by and large - you can't.
deleted by creator
It would literally be Earth. We are as much a part of the environment as anything else.
If we can't do it across the existing planet, how the hell do we expect to do it in an artificial subset of the planet?
Humans are nature. We are not living sustainably, but nothing ever truly does. The natural balance of a given region is routinely thrown off by environmental, population, and evolutionary changes.
We're not striving for global preservation. Life will still be here when we're gone. We're striving for self preservation. And an arcology doesn't get us there any more than a space ship to Mars.
A group of living things banding together into a mega organism is an evolutionary strategy that usually occurs in response to sustained predation by other species. That’s true all the way up from single-cell lifeforms to human beings. I’m not sure there’s a reason to repeat that pattern at one more level of abstraction. You don’t have to go full anprim to have urban design which is ecologically aware or to avoid chopping down the lungs of our planet for extra space to put caged animals.
I’m confused by your assertion that we would have access to nature, but wouldn’t touch it. What does that mean? We would breathe the air. We would drink the water. It’s all connected.
deleted by creator
That's a whole lot of currently implausible "ifs" that in the meantime don't quite seem to justify "what if society, but things in cool compact boxes that aren't viable without speculative tech?"
Wouldn't the planet Earth be an arcology?
deleted by creator
True, though seeking to create something (almost) self-sufficient will at least get part of the equation right, which is building a circular economy around more local production and longer-lasting, indefinitely maintainable infrastructure. Going to the extreme is less efficient and more wasteful (short of having Star Trek replicators), of course.
I'd argue that building an Elysium only incentives exploitation of the exterior.
Under capitalism, sure, though that also applies to non-Elysium. It's happening right now, where our system creates an exterior that's right in the back yard of the upper classes, but can still be sufficiently isolated via propaganda and dreams and, eventually, moving to a less destroyed place. The fundamental driver is the material conditions created by the economic system, and capitalism will create an exterior regardless of whether production occurs in theoretically self-sufficient eco pods or wholesale clearing of jungle to build a railroad through appropriated land in Chiapas.
No argument there.
True. But even the old Soviets weren't above externalizing their waste. Hell, until fairly recently breathing in Beijing was like smoking two packs a day.
Capitalism isn't the only incentive to externalize. And arcologies don't stop people from externalizing. They just create an (ideally) impermeable barrier between regions.
No argument here! I'm curious about what you're thinking about at standing out for arcologies. I'm sympathetic but am not sure what is really all that different from the status quo.
I think the only arcology we can create, in any practical sense, is Earth itself. Anything less just means creating a barrier beyond which we dump all our excess waste