Ecumenopolis

[Zelos]

Ecumenopolis comes from the greek word for "world city". a city that never ends, the entire planet would be a gigantic city :D . for me its the perfect world. we will if the pridiction is right have that city when we reach 0,9 on the Kardashev scale. qurently we are 0,7. what would you think about this future? a future whit 1 city on this planet. a never ending city :evil: no forests, coz we wont need them, no animals, coz we dont need them, nothing else than what we want :evil:

[Numsgil]

I think someone figured out that a world wide city would be impractical.

Imagine:

You have to transport perishable food items to the world from off world.  It would take many, many agrarian planets to sustain a single city planet of the density of, say, modern New York.

Now, imagine a planet that is even more urban.  Layered and layered under endless waves of steel and mortar.

First of all, there would be no plant life on the planet, or only meager amounts.  The sheer amount of waste materials such a planet would generate is astounding.  Massive amounts of energy would be needed just to scrub the water and air.

Second, the sheer amount of food necessary would mean transportation.  Even today most food is impractical to transport long distances.  Imagine trying to transport food to a urban planet from a different system (many planets, more than a single solar system could hold).

Such a city would represent a target too large to rivals.  The planet could easily be conquered by simply cutting off its supply of food.  Within a few months, years at most, the entire planet would die of starvation.

Last, as technology increases we become increasingly decentralized.  The internet represents such a system.  Soon, power sources will also be such a thing.  I think, if anything, we will see the eventual suburbanization of planets.  The need for us to gather in person will decrease as technology increases, until there is no incentive at all except for mating (and maybe even then!)

So we'll all live in the environment in which we find the most beautiful.  There is a predesigned environment of semi-arid that our species finds the most pleasurable (think the lawns that everyone lives on.  Short grass like that only grows naturally in semi-arid environments.  Wetter than that and long grass and eventually trees develop.)

So you'll eventually see the entire universe a homogenous mixture of suburban developments and massively organized farms supporting them on the same planet.

[Zelos]

when it comes to food, what if each and every house have a machinge which is capable of taking the CO2 from the air, water from our water system, and our biproducts, you know what I mean I hope, and can change the molecules so they become what we call is food, it is identical, the machine made food of no food :D and why shall we mate if we dont want to when we can clone? make ppl by mixing genes from a enourmus gene bank. and about energy, such a city would most likly use the energy from the sun very effient, use the energy from the center of the earth, and most likly also fusion/fission, all this togheter can probely generate enough of energy to supply the entire planet. and why live in a world we dont like when we can get one we like? its perfect whit the right technology I tell you

[PurpleYouko]

Who the heck would want to live in a giant city?

I hate cities. That is why I choose to live in the country with an acre of my very own short grass, a few ornamental trees and herds of wildlife like deer, birds and rabits.

Living in a world wide city would be shear torture for people like me. It will never happen. There's just too many nature lovers (and laws that protect bloody woodpeckers that keep attacking my house.  :shoot: Nasty little bastards!)

 :D  PY  :D

[Numsgil]

First of all, I doubt that cloning or other 'artificial' means will ever replace good old sex as the dominant reproductive method.  The family unit is hard wired into our collective psyche, with children being an amalgamate of the parents, and families living on physical contact with one another.  Any system that denies this cannot be stable, and will eventually collapse.

Second, even pretending that we could make machines that could 100% effectively convert sunlight into food, and cover every single square inch of visible land with it, it would still mean a planet with a population density roughly that of a suburb.  (Perhaps a little denser, but definately not as dense as an urban center with sky scrapers).

and why live in a world we dont like when we can get one we like

My point exactly.  Every human has two environments they like.

1.  Where they grew up
2.  A semiarid land in the springtime, with short green grass and a few trees.

The first is from environmental factors, and varies with every culture and person.  The second is universal to our species and speaks of a past time of common ancestory.

So, given infinite time and no limitations, you will eventually see every person in existance living in the environment their species dictates, namely a short grass semi arid environment.

This all adds up to eternal suburbs across every planet capable of sustaining earth life among the 200 Billion+ stars in the galaxy.

[PurpleYouko]

Have you ever read Asimov's foundation series. There are some pretty wacky industrial planets in there.

 :D  PY  :D

[Numsgil]

Yeah, and you saw what happened to the Galactic Empire.  Decay.  The central city (forget the name) turned into a rural hick's paradise.  The steel torn up and replaced with farms.

I'm telling you, it's going to be suburbia for ever and ever.  The only possible debate is the size of the lots.

[PurpleYouko]

You can see it all around even now, particularly in some of the older cities in places like England.

It goes like this.

First, everyone gets together and makes a big city because that was the way things worked a couple hundred years ago. No phones or decent roads so you had to be close together to do business.

The better off business men begin to live in the suburbs cuz it is just nicer out there.

Pretty soon the middle bit is a run down slum where only the poorest people live.

Eventually even the down and outs move out.

After a while developers move in, bulldoze the giant appartment blocks and put up trendy new dockside luxury appartments with surrounding reclaimed parklands.

The rich folk move back in cuz now they can have their cake and eat it.

The outcome?

Giant suburbs just like Num said.

Go to central Manchester or Birmingham and take a look. You can see it happening all over England.

Most US cities haven't quite reached that point because they got off to a later start than British cities.

 :)  PY  :)

[MightyPenguin]

You have to transport perishable food items to the world from off world. It would take many, many agrarian planets to sustain a single city planet of the density of, say, modern New York.

Hydroponics. 'Nuff said, really.

First of all, there would be no plant life on the planet, or only meager amounts. The sheer amount of waste materials such a planet would generate is astounding. Massive amounts of energy would be needed just to scrub the water and air.

Dyson sphere the sun. Simple; cheap. Like a one ex ten year long battery. Plus, a fully urbanised city would provide a stepping stone to set up a system to capture waste heat; you can feed the waste energy back into the waste products it resulted from. Yes, you lose some from energy transition, but it lowers the energy cost significantly.

Second, the sheer amount of food necessary would mean transportation. Even today most food is impractical to transport long distances. Imagine trying to transport food to a urban planet from a different system (many planets, more than a single solar system could hold).

You're still thinking in terms of off planet food production. Not necessarily true, and you also assume that interstellar travel is possible. Admittably, transport within the Ecumenopolis (actually, that word sucks ass; I'm going to go with Ravincia instead.), within Ravincia would be hell unless it was properly organised. Actually, Ravincia would be unworkable in any shape or form without an organised transport system. Look at the Earth now; the biggest cities already well beyond the capacity of their transport systems to bind them. We have to assume that anybody crazy enough to build this thing would have a transport system built to last in mind.

Such a city would represent a target too large to rivals. The planet could easily be conquered by simply cutting off its supply of food. Within a few months, years at most, the entire planet would die of starvation.

You assume that;

• 1: There are other intelligent species in the Galaxy
  
• 2: Interstellar travel is possible and/or feasible in a timeframe small enough for a war to be constructed
  
• 3: This species desires conquest of other worlds
  
• 4: It would be economicably viable to build and maintain an interstellar empire, even with travel as a given. Remember, the British Empire, the largest empire ever known, covered a bare third of the world's land and that was held together basically by force of will.
  
• 5: Such a planet would be a desirable prize; by your own arguments it would be a burden rather than much of a prize.

That leaves other humans as potential opponents, and even they would be bounded by 2,3,4 and 5. 5 could work if the planet was the centre of administration.

Last, as technology increases we become increasingly decentralized. The internet represents such a system. Soon, power sources will also be such a thing. I think, if anything, we will see the eventual suburbanization of planets. The need for us to gather in person will decrease as technology increases, until there is no incentive at all except for mating (and maybe even then!)

So we'll all live in the environment in which we find the most beautiful. There is a predesigned environment of semi-arid that our species finds the most pleasurable (think the lawns that everyone lives on. Short grass like that only grows naturally in semi-arid environments. Wetter than that and long grass and eventually trees develop.)

We are fifteen years from fast rendered photo-realistic graphics. Add another five to develop VR to the point where it will be indistinguishable from life. At that point the human race will down tools and jack in, leaving robots to care for their rotting bodies in the most efficient manner. I.e. stacking them in warehouses. Urban planet a go.

[MightyPenguin]

I hate cities. That is why I choose to live in the country with an acre of my very own short grass, a few ornamental trees and herds of wildlife like deer, birds and rabbits.

I am the opposite. I know a girl from Hong Kong who hates this city because our buildings aren't tall enough to block out the sun. Different strokes for differing folks. (paraphrased, I know, but this is more elegant.)

First of all, I doubt that cloning or other 'artificial' means will ever replace good old sex as the dominant reproductive method. The family unit is hard wired into our collective psyche, with children being an amalgamate of the parents, and families living on physical contact with one another. Any system that denies this cannot be stable, and will eventually collapse.

Sex is something everybody enjoys. Having children is not. Look at the declining populations of the more developed countries if you want proof. And as the two can be made mutually exclusive...

1. Where they grew up
2. A semiarid land in the springtime, with short green grass and a few trees.

The first is from environmental factors, and varies with every culture and person. The second is universal to our species and speaks of a past time of common ancestory.

So, given infinite time and no limitations, you will eventually see every person in existance living in the environment their species dictates, namely a short grass semi arid environment.

 :rolleyes:

See first point this post.

[Botsareus]

Read the Revolations , it talks about (I think) world wide citys. Sounds to me like in the end Humens will be leaving in a Gieant Borg Kube

[Numsgil]

War within humanity is always an option.  Wars have lasted hundreds of years before.  The lightning wars of today have spoiled us, but it wasn't too long ago that a war of 30 years wasn't uncommon and a hundred or more years wasn't unheard of.

With a reasonable interstellar vehicle that humanity could actually make with present technology a trip to nearby stars would take ~30 years.

If we pretend that humans can travel at ~ light speed then interstellar wars become very probable.

And you wouldn't conquer the planets your at war with.  You'd destroy them.  Anyone who plays Civ 3 knows that's the best way to win a war.

As far as jacking in, I think it will become an option but it will never entirely replace real life.  Everyone always thinks in extremes.  When have we ever known one thing to entirely replace another?

Real life allows has some advantages over any simulation.


People will always want children.  The decline of childbirth in industrial countries doesn't mean people don't want children.  It means they want children later in life and much fewer.  Most people want 1 - 3 children.  You'll always see families, no matter how advanced society becomes.  It's hard wired into our minds.  To deny this would mean society would eventually collapse.

[Light]

I think the reduction in the number of children people have is linked to decreasing infant mortality, people used to have lots knowing that some of them wouldn't make it to adulthood, its playing the probability game, the odds of children surviving have increased so people need less of them.

[MightyPenguin]

War within humanity is always an option. Wars have lasted hundreds of years before. The lightning wars of today have spoiled us, but it wasn't too long ago that a war of 30 years wasn't uncommon and a hundred or more years wasn't unheard of.

This has anything to do with anything because...? Over distances of time and space (ftl is still not a given, ftc even less so, from my understanding) the logistics of commanding an army break down. If you can only communicate at light speed the entire structure of a military organisation breaks down over those distances.

And you wouldn't conquer the planets your at war with. You'd destroy them. Anyone who plays Civ 3 knows that's the best way to win a war.

You idiot, Numsgil. You'd win the war, yes, but it would be an entirely pointless war; a war waged purely for the sake of destroying the other race. I know no examples of that sort of war. The Crusades were a war of territory; the Europeans wanted the Holy Lands. The Cold War was a war of ideaology; each side wanted to force the other to run the world the way they thought it should be run. Never has war been waged for the sole purpose of destroying other human beings.

Even when people have had ethic prejudices strong enough to go to war they have held back, as each side knows instinctively that without a massive advantage that such a war would be the dirtiest imaginable; each side would fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves being annihilated.

More later; router goes off soon.

[Numsgil]

Humanity has shown that war is possible under any circumstances.

This has anything to do with anything because...? Over distances of time and space (ftl is still not a given, ftc even less so, from my understanding) the logistics of commanding an army break down. If you can only communicate at light speed the entire structure of a military organisation breaks down over those distances.

This means that centralized authoity figures for a war are impractical, so you end up with individual generals commanding the forces in a single system.  It certainly doesn't mean that you can't have a military.

Rome was quite effective even when its generals had to wait months for messages from Rome.  There was nothing about their system that would make an even longer wait less effective.

You idiot, Numsgil. You'd win the war, yes, but it would be an entirely pointless war; a war waged purely for the sake of destroying the other race. I know no examples of that sort of war. The Crusades were a war of territory; the Europeans wanted the Holy Lands. The Cold War was a war of ideaology; each side wanted to force the other to run the world the way they thought it should be run. Never has war been waged for the sole purpose of destroying other human beings.

Even when people have had ethic prejudices strong enough to go to war they have held back, as each side knows instinctively that without a massive advantage that such a war would be the dirtiest imaginable; each side would fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves being annihilated.

That's right, people want territory.  Space for their own kind to expand into.

Let's say two interstellar human loose confederacies are at war with one another.  One is decentralized, the other has a single urban world and lots of smaller worlds supporting it.

The decentralized people would have an easy time of it.  Lay seige on the urban world and within a few years you have entirely crippled your enemy.  The remaining rural worlds are easy to take.  The urban world is empty, ready to bring in your own people.

People can be very cruel as long as its anonymous cruelty.  Seige from space is as anonymous as you can get.

You can see then that urban worlds are a very vulnerable military target.  When your done the world is left intact sans the people.  Then you can do anything you like with the planet.  Rip it up, transport your own colonsits there, whatever you want.

The centralized people are going to have to take not one, but many worlds before their enemies become weakened.  Every new planet they find is going to have to be conquered, none will be easy pickings.

The economies of scale, also, simply have a limit before their effectiveness becomes choked by beurocracy.  Planet wide specialization is impractical.

Which means that their will be a constant tug for societies to remain as decentralized as possible.  Overly centralized societies will collapse as the more efficient, decentralized societies overcome them through war or economic domination.