Landsat 5's Timelaps of Las Vega Sprawl

So here is a discussion topic, that came to mind upon watching the above:

What do we do once we run out of useable surface area to account for the continued population growth realizing that a certain percentage still needs to remain for food production?

Do we go up - taller structures?

Do we go down - underground/under water?

Do we go in - hollowing out mountains?

Do we terraform? - terracing mountains?

What are the pros and cons of the options? How does the redirected sprawl direction have to account for environmental impacts, safety concerns, human perception and needs (i.e. living in a cave would surely invoke depression over time - Ask anyone that relocated from Colorado to Ohio how they like hardly ever seeing the sun. Or who in their right-mind would be willing to live on the 300th floor given not only the height but the probable constant sway they would feel all the time?)

So, the scope of the problem... we're out of room and can no longer sprawl out and we have to go either up, down, or under. What is your choice? What are the pros and cons? What are the obstacles? Using current tech, what are some engineered solutions?

no... we do this sort of thing.

OK, although I am seriously disturbed by the motivation behind Seasteading, not to mention that you could code one heck of a simulation program to experiment with different government models for… oh, about 1 millionth of the cost… let's roll with it; because in the world of problem solving, no idea is discounted without at least some sort of evaluation, analysis, and debate.

Remove the motivation and just consider the tangible as an additional alternative… Adding, 'On top of the ocean' to the potential alternative solutions to running out of room.

Is it viable? How would you do it? What are the challenges?

my own plan is to consolidate living with a floating energy island. sorry you will have to do some reading of the whole thread.

link

chris

Looks interesting, but a long and extensive thread. I'll 'dive' into it this weekend.

You, I, and our children will not have to worry about that.

Cool, I like tasks with no deadlines

More likely have some more wars and reduce the population. It's a nasty thing to say but starvation is Mother Natures way of regulating her populations. Make less people, need less land.

Outside of political posturing and rebellion against oppression, running out of room can be a cause for war. War or a Modest Proposal or Solient Green, are all reactionary, I'm looking more from a proactive perspective. Addressing an issue before it becomes a problem.

I picked this topic simply because the recently released Landsat video prompted it. But, I am open to suggestions…

Another option is to reduce the amount of space available to individuals. Often in sci-fi books/films/series, each individual has a living pod - which may vary from a sleeping area to a three room apartment, but always smaller than the present day average dwelling.

I'm not advocating this one, just throwing it out there.

Of course, this comes with a ban on pets....

agree agree agree... I'm working on it.

Just look at Japan if you want a model.

The cultural definition for personal space is very different than the Western world.

However, the issue of population growth is more complex than simply expanding numbers of people. As civilizations mature the population growth rates stabilize and become self supporting. Most of Europe is experiencing this right now.

If you break the various age groups down into segments and compare the relative population for each group you should see each segment having approximately the same population numbers. This is stable and sustainable population with a small growth.

In third world countries those same populations per segment are highly skewed with the youngest age segments being substantially larger than older age groups. This is an unstable arrangement with massive population growth and no civil structure to support it. Consequently we see massive hunger, health issues, and excessive poverty.

In rare cases we see negative population growth. Russia is just such an example. Russia simply does not have enough children to sustain the country. At the current rate Russia will cease to exist before the end of the this century. The infrastructure will collapse because the aging population will have too few young workers to support the rest of the populace economically.

As far as overpopulation goes the real problem spots are developing and third world countries.

Completely agree AH.

The first and most effective solution to running out of room, is learning how to need less space, much like Japan and China… a cultural shift that the West will only learn through necessity.

And I also agree that primary drivers behind population stabilization are proportionate to civilization advancement, economic cycles, and sociological perceptions.

So, focusing on the trouble spots, but also acknowledging that the less-than developed 3^rd World isn't necessarily uncivilized; is part of the root cause that they have never had an economic cycle that prompted a cultural shift related to population control? And thus will these areas always have population issues until they do?

If so, besides climate, what are the major hindrances to their economic development? Some might say transportation infrastructure, but I disagree. You can build all the roads you want but they are still going to be walking. I'm leaning more towards communication. Would a better communications infrastructure be the first building block in prompting economic development in these areas? If so, in their culture, terrain, technical ability to maintain systems, and logistical supply issues for spare parts, what mode of communication system would make sense… short-wave?

You wrote, "If so, besides climate, what are the major hindrances to their economic development?"

There really is no single cause for these problems. In many instances it is geographic, or internal resources, or infrastructure, or predominantly political/religious systems that prevent emergence into the developed world.

Often, those containing pressures can be external as much as internal.

While Western population levels have pretty much stabilized the reverse is true for the underdeveloped world. Prospects for a sudden or rapid change from the status quo is very small.

Whole-heartedly agree, which is why I phrased the quoted question in the plural.

Certainly the situation there is dynamic, I've been there (Ethiopia, Somalia, and Uganda) and seen it first-hand. Granted, some of these were military-drive so my exposure and acticities varied greatly, and I never stayed long.

Also why I phrased "Would a better communications infrastructure be the first building block in prompting..." the way I did. Not looking for a magic pill or end-all solution, because there isn't one. Time, in and of itself, is going to be a huge part of any solution in order to allow for cultural transition.

What I was trying to get at is, given the complexity of the problems, and the dynamic geo-political landscape, they appear to be stuck in a cycle that isn't gaining them any ground. While outsiders come in with assistance for symptoms (hunger, human-rights issues, war, etc.) but never breaking the cycle.

A better communications infrastructure, as an initial example, could be an instigator; not necessarily a solution, but a tool that would eventually prompt some action that breaks the circular path they are on and gets them on something a bit more linear.

The system does not change because those in power do not want it to change.

That applies to the leaders inside those countries and outside those countries.

Yes, there are organizations that are trying to help, but the resistance is from the governments themselves and in some cases external governments keeping the system in place for the benefit of those external government.

Tibet is an example of what foreign powers will do. China wants Tibet under their control to protect their own interests with regard to boarder security.

India would be happy with a free Tibet because it weakens China and to a degree, Pakistan, but India is unwilling to challenge China directly on the issue. Tibet is caught in the middle of this external fight and not able to brake out from its international pawn status.

Clearly, this is not a communication issue, but a much more sinister power struggle. The same applies for just about any third world nation. Internal and extern power struggles are keeping people from freedom and the ability to improve their own lives and well being. However, these same power forces are perfectly happy to frame it as if it is any other reason besides their own doing.

Acknowledged, but it is possible to overcome outside influences through efficient organization and implementation of a plan with a clear focus.

Considering that outside governments, and local controlling parties may want to maintain the status-quo, but assuming the general populace don't; what tools would 'the people' need to write their own destiny?

I mean, outside of the obvious military intervention by a strong ally, which is generally the last part of every equation. There is no denying that weaker countries are enslaved to the level of engagement of stronger allies and that the last step of any drastic change is generally and armed revolution.

But, where I'm going is what is the first step? Sticking with Tibet now, if the icing on the cake is a strong ally coming to their defense and forcing their oppressor to back off... what are the ingredients needed to bake the cake in the first place?

If you were a respected leader in Tibet and were well versed in the dynamics of your situation and were looked to by your people as the one to facilitate change... what would your plan be? And, what resources would you need to implement the first step of your plan?

If you were the leader of a village in Uganda who held a position of respect among many of the surrounding villages and were looked to as the one... how would begin? What would resources would assist you in implementing your plan?

It is not as if the general populace of these countries do not want change, but as you said they are stuck... what do they need to help them get unstuck? Yes, it generally always boils down to guns and/or big brother fighting for them? But that's the end-state. What's the beginning?

You wrote, "What's the beginning?"

It is what follows despair. It is called hope.

How far are you willing to go to exorcise a demon, and what measures would you implement to prevent being possessed again?

How far are you willing to go to remove a cancer, and what measures would you implement to prevent its recurrence?

How far are you willing to go?

'Power' is the enemy and the hope. If you have the power to remove the enemy, and restore hope, do you not also have the power to become the enemy?

What you need is a 3rd party independent, uncorruptible faithful trustworthy surgeon/defender/vitamin that provides both the power and prevention, without damaging the original entity.

This requires the ability to absolutely recognize elements of the original entity, and prevent deception (moles.)

The 3rd party must have sufficient power/resources to counter the powers/defenses of the offending entity. (whether first strike or retailiatory or vengeant)

Ultimately, it comes down to... freedom of choice.

the 3rd party needs to be independent.. that means no home country... and needs to be uncorruptible.. that means volunteers and a non-hierarchical command structure... and vast resources... which means that what they do must pay very well, or possess vast financial and technical resources. That means indpendent non-governmental/country based funding. and I think it means that overall power must not reside in the hands of the few.

It is not an easy combination.

chris

A clear and cogent statement of the problem.

Perhaps if we could work out why the revolution in Libya worked, whilst that in Syria has not, we would be closer to a general answer. We could also learn from the overthrow of communism in Eastern Eurpoean countries in the last 20-30 years for some tips.

I think that one of the common features is that there was a "government-in-waiting" prepared and enabled by the people to fill the power vacuum that inevitably follows the removal of a dictator (in the widest sense of the term). The government-in-waiting should be one that is self-limiting in both power and time, so that it avoids the trap of turning into that which it defeated. A timetable to full and open elections, monitored by those independent and disinterested (in the original sense of the word) parties to ensure fairness is both done and seen to be done are also needed.

How this can be done without bloodshed is the trickiest question. Maybe the Czech and Slovak nations can give us some tips.

And afterwards: forgiveness. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Hearings were an example to the world.

One change that has been shown time and again to have a huge positive social and ultimately political impact is the education of girls/women. A society that values its womenfolk as equal in potential is more stable and less dogmatic than one that enslaves them.

At the risk of straying into politics, I was against the invasion of Afghanistan since a) it's a sovereign country and b) history shows it never ends well. Whilst most of me looks forward to the coming troop withdrawal and the return of sovereignty to the Afghan people, a part of me worries that it will see a return to the enslavement of women in that society. That one step will undo whatever good has come from the invasion. So I am conflicted: I think that Afghanistan should be ruled by the Afghans and I would like to see female emancipation established in the country but the reports I hear make the latter seem unlikely in the near future.

The African countries who have embraced and empowered their womenfolk are the ones closer to an open and stable government. The ones with dictactorships have a female second (or even third class).

Obviously, educating and empowering women doesn't solve all the world's ills, it does, however, take a large step in the right direction and enable more of the other steps to be taken. I believe that if more aid money (outside the emgerency responses to starvation etc) was spent on education for all, it would have more effect than at present. Trouble is, as AH noted, if you educate your people, they will question the status quo and many of the incumbant governments don't want that. (And some of our governments don't either...)

On the communication front, wireless and cell phones are a big part of much of African life. I was talking to an aid worker recently and they explained that the cell phone is knitted into much of sub-Saharan life now, including mobile banking and the like, because the phone comapnies gave away handsets and 2 year free contracts. The problems are being seen now as the free periods end, people rely on the technology as an intergral part of their lives - but now they have to find money to pay for it.

The "national grid" model we in the developed world have used for communications, TV, phones, power and water will not work in the African continent as it is today - and they do not have the "luxury" of a slow and gradual implementation as happened in the developed world. Other methods need to be found - and if politicians etc etc raise their snouts, perhaps it can be done in a sustainable way that causes least harm to the environment whilst raising living standards.

For example - don't build power stations and a national grid...use solar and local generation: spend the money to benefit the population not the big business (snort!).

What I'm trying to say is that wholesale importation of "what we do", isn't necessarily the best solution for the developing world. There are "if we were starting again we wouldn't do it like that" considerations as well as "you can't start from there" points. This is probably as true for the political systems as for the technology systems.

Japan was in the back of my mind as I wrote the post - the pod hotels are a case in point. I understand that the very strict social rules we associate with the Japanese culture came about in response to finding a way to live in what many western people might term "on top of one another".

If you look back to the ways certain parts of British society lived 100+ years ago and the ways in which many people in western continental Europe live today, they are closer to the Japanese model than the "Western" model you mention.

Britain and America/Canada have the more individualistic bent. France, Germany, Sweden and Italy all have a more "social" way of living, with apartment life being more prevalent. Yes, this is a sweeping generalisation, and in places such as London and New York, the living patterns are "social", but without sweeping generalisations how can we have a good argument debate?

I think the sci-fi I mentioned takes the control element a stage (or more) further than current societies do.