Sunday, November 25, 2007

Building for tech

Humans have reproduced with the speed of algae on a fish tank since the beginning of the 1900s to today. Though everyone has space on this Earth, there is a much better reason to build large metropolises than to deal with overpopulation. This is information exchange. If you work, eat, and live all in the same structure, you spend less time traveling from one place to another. You spend more time working, eating, and living. Your information has to travel a shorter distance, your food has to travel a shorter distance, and you have to travel a shorter distances to work, play, and sleep. All of this means more gets done with less energy.

How massive can we make a city building? In the next century we shall see, but i don't believe that we will meet any limitations until we reach about 50 or 60 thousand feet. We will no doubt have the materials to keep breathable air in, but what happens when our Sun increases the intensity of radiation that we know today can burn out whole power grids and take down satellites? At this height, we have much less atmosphere to slow these particles from our Sun so that they don't damage us.

Engineering disasters will inevitably happen. Though these buildings will be on such a massive scale that disasters normally won't happen to the whole structure but to peaces. Like the Coliseum in Rome that was built by several builders and of which some parts have collapsed and others are left intact. So will these mass structures of metropolises be developed by multiple builders and may fall in parts.
I believe that this forum will help me with my writing in a couple of ways. Firstly, it will help me get the documents that I have prepared on this subject off of my computer which i think will help to better preserve them. Second, it will give me the incentive to make much needed spelling and grammar corrections to them. As I hope to present a bit more than 'fluff' - what an english teacher referred to writing that I think she would have preferred to call 'crap' - and something that people might enjoy reading versus being turned off by countless grammatical and spelling errors (as I often am when reading well thought but poorly written articles. Third, I would hope to get *thoughtful* feedback.

I think that my third incentive needs a bit definition when concerned with the loose term thoughtful. I don't expect Hubble, Dirak, Einstein, Newton, or Galileo to be reading my writing - as they're dead. Though, I doubt that Hawking, Tyson, or any other - still alive - great minds to read my work. What I would expect is that if you wish to give me feedback, you abide by a couple of 'rules', so please:
  1. Say more than five words - "You're an idiot" "Love your writing" - I DON'T CARE
  2. Unless you are pointing a unbiased and blunt untruth I have stated, take more than five minutes to think about what you are saying.
  3. Make your point and be done with it - don't keep reiterating a point you've already made, don't put incessant carriage returns (aka - 'enter') like a teenage chat room.
  4. Don't type everything big and bold, small and blending in with the background, or using all caps.
As I'm sure this doesn't cover all of what I mean about being 'thoughtful', I think I have made my point; hence won't say anything more on the subject. And I really do want feedback.

Last, the pictures on the slide show may or may not have been taken by me. Most were taken on family vacations and since we only had one (fairly) high end camera - the talented photographers that we all are - had to share. So I can't say which of these pictures I took and which I didn't (unless I was in it - and that is rare).