There’s another word for systems which continue internal functions independent of their environment: perpetual motion machines. In a very fundamental way, the human project is one which fights entropy. I think the best we can really do is to make entropy more of a conscious choice. Like a library throwing away books that no one ever checks out. Energy and information will be lost. If we can choose which information is important and let the rest fall away, good. If we can make our energy systems more stable by mimicking how ecosystems reach homeostasis, but even that is not the same thing as preventing change. This is one reason why capitalist firms are fundamentally cancerous. They put their continued existence above the continued existence of their environment, attempting to remove themselves from it.
So if you’re not talking about an idealized system, you’re just talking about putting abstractions around a system and trying to maximize efficiency? Is there a particular reason that localizing life into a single building is any more efficient than allowing people to travel between them? The human body has arteries and veins. We could have bullet trains. Basically, what separates what you’re advocating for from some variant of solarpunk urbanism?
I think it's aesthetics first and practicality second. The Torment Nexus might sound cool, then after the fact justifications could be thought of for why the Torment Nexus should be built.
travel is probably an incredibly important thing to keep the various city-states from not only becoming political echo chambers, but also dying of new diseases they grew up isolated from.
You talk elsewhere about how you don’t want to give up modern medical advancements. An MRI machine, even a really outdated one, has an inherently global supply chain. There is no single area that has all the required materials. You give up energy-efficient freight transport, you give up modern medicine. Our technology is hundreds if not thousands of years away from mitigating that tradeoff.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that we shouldn’t be doing ecologically-minded architecture or that we shouldn’t strive for energy efficiency. I think the question is whether an arcology is indeed he most efficient and ecologically-minded design. If I end up living under a socialist state who attempts to build them and has engineers and ecologists claiming they’re theoretically sound, I’d be happy to live in one. Maybe this is just more technical a conversation than I’m prepared for and I’m not understanding why. But for right now, I appreciate you sharing this interest and arguing your case.
They put their continued existence above the continued existence of their environment, attempting to remove themselves from it.
They can afford to though. The only wildcard is whether the raw level of CO2 might become so high that humans are unable to survive, including the rich ones
everything else is fine for them though, it doesn't matter if half the world becomes deserts, if 95% of the world population (poors and "middle class") dies off. They can just buy and squat indefinitely on the land in Quebec/Alaska/etc
The continued existence of a firm isn’t solely dependent on the lives of its owners, though. Climate change is arguable already hurting capital. They just don’t see all these pains as part of a single issue yet and will continue to attempt to ignore them until they absolutely can’t.
There’s another word for systems which continue internal functions independent of their environment: perpetual motion machines. In a very fundamental way, the human project is one which fights entropy. I think the best we can really do is to make entropy more of a conscious choice. Like a library throwing away books that no one ever checks out. Energy and information will be lost. If we can choose which information is important and let the rest fall away, good. If we can make our energy systems more stable by mimicking how ecosystems reach homeostasis, but even that is not the same thing as preventing change. This is one reason why capitalist firms are fundamentally cancerous. They put their continued existence above the continued existence of their environment, attempting to remove themselves from it.
deleted by creator
So if you’re not talking about an idealized system, you’re just talking about putting abstractions around a system and trying to maximize efficiency? Is there a particular reason that localizing life into a single building is any more efficient than allowing people to travel between them? The human body has arteries and veins. We could have bullet trains. Basically, what separates what you’re advocating for from some variant of solarpunk urbanism?
I think it's aesthetics first and practicality second. The Torment Nexus might sound cool, then after the fact justifications could be thought of for why the Torment Nexus should be built.
deleted by creator
travel is probably an incredibly important thing to keep the various city-states from not only becoming political echo chambers, but also dying of new diseases they grew up isolated from.
You talk elsewhere about how you don’t want to give up modern medical advancements. An MRI machine, even a really outdated one, has an inherently global supply chain. There is no single area that has all the required materials. You give up energy-efficient freight transport, you give up modern medicine. Our technology is hundreds if not thousands of years away from mitigating that tradeoff.
deleted by creator
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that we shouldn’t be doing ecologically-minded architecture or that we shouldn’t strive for energy efficiency. I think the question is whether an arcology is indeed he most efficient and ecologically-minded design. If I end up living under a socialist state who attempts to build them and has engineers and ecologists claiming they’re theoretically sound, I’d be happy to live in one. Maybe this is just more technical a conversation than I’m prepared for and I’m not understanding why. But for right now, I appreciate you sharing this interest and arguing your case.
They can afford to though. The only wildcard is whether the raw level of CO2 might become so high that humans are unable to survive, including the rich ones
everything else is fine for them though, it doesn't matter if half the world becomes deserts, if 95% of the world population (poors and "middle class") dies off. They can just buy and squat indefinitely on the land in Quebec/Alaska/etc
The continued existence of a firm isn’t solely dependent on the lives of its owners, though. Climate change is arguable already hurting capital. They just don’t see all these pains as part of a single issue yet and will continue to attempt to ignore them until they absolutely can’t.