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
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