A fat lot of good that will do when this baby goes off.
I notice you didn’t quote the last sentence:
But when it comes to whether this pinwheel might pose a danger to us, “I would worry a lot more about global warming,” Melott said.
I would also worry more about getting stuck by lightning, gang raped by the Cowboy Cheerleaders and a whole lot of other unlikely things.
I think he was making the same point.[/quote]
I think it is a bit arrogant to assume we are invincible and we should not have a plan B. I am not trying to be a doomsday prophet and say Oh No the end times are near. All I am saying is A) we have the tech to do it now. Hell maybe wait 10-20 years to do it so we will have better tech and it becomes cheaper to do. But we should have a team of people at the very least Planning this, and getting ready to implement it when it does become reasonable to do so, be that now or in 10 years.
Look, I am a small government type of guy, so I think all these advancements should be done by the private sector, with the exception of something like this. This is a contingency plan, and the government should have an interest in making sure it’s people live on in the event of a dissaster. My estimates about cost may be off, but so may yours. Untill someone builds it nobody will know the cost. I believe that was one of the problems with the big dig, the costs just kept escalating and escalating.
It does not however cost an unreasonable amount of money to plan it out, and see what it would actually cost. Hell, maybe because it’s for the good of the species, you get things donated that would otherwise cost a good chunk of change. Maybye Microsoft donates the computer system, Bill gates has no need to worry about money, and he can put his name on doing something benevolent for the species. You just never know untill someone actually plans it out and does it. I don’t know if I could just start writing letters but hey maybe I will.
[quote]Fulmen wrote:
Vegita wrote:
You guys are making this far more complicated than it really is. NASA already has self contained 2-3 person living environments. The human and plants live in harmony and support eachother. All water is recycled, Sure you are going to lose energy in the transfers, thats why they have solar panels, to restore the lost energy that is used. All I am doing is Scaling it, putting it underground, and changing the energy source from Solar to Geothermal.
The ideal would be to make it big enough for several hundred people to live in. This would reduce things like cabin fever and stress. But if it were too much to do, you could do it in House sized models where 5-10 people could live in them. They have developed these things to sustain life for a very long time on the surface of mars, so I’m sure it would cost less to put one 100 meters under our earth surface than it is to fly one or several to Mars.
Hell, Just by eliminating the US governments waste per year we could realistically make one of these every year. Make it into a business model where you have vacation suites so it can recover costs before the disaster hits. Like the Ice Hotel, it would be a novelty that Would attract visitors. Also you didn’t address the other Dissasters that this would protect against.
I thought about it after watching a show on comet impacts, but it would prevent against Nuclear War, Massive global Climate change, (stupid) aliens, Smart ones would probably find us, Humans cloning dinasours and unleashing them ALA Jurassic Park on the world. Hell Science fiction has been astoundingly accurate at predicting the future, you just never know what us crazy humans will do next.
V
V
Great, so now we could die from protein deficiency. Or can you fit cows in future living environments?
[/quote]
Granted most of your protien would be coming from plant sources. It will not be ideal for bodybuilding, but it will be plenty sufficient to stay alive and healthy. You could put in some small water systems with sardines or anchovies or other small, fast growing fish to get an occasional intake of protien and fatty acids. Again, Depending on how you scaled it, you could include animals on some scale, chickens for eggs and meat, maybe some milking cows and the occasional beef meal when one can be replaced.
You would also want to have some honey bee hives down there to help pollinate the crops. I mean this is what I’m talking about, there could be tons of stuff that you would want to add or remove when people brain storm on this and actually plan it out.
Maybe we can capture power in the nuclear windstorm… just putup some giant pinwheels, or those windmills like they have out towards the Silicon Valley.
Why don’t we have more of those anyways? Kansas should have some of those.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Bill gates has no need to worry about money, and he can put his name on doing something benevolent for the species.
He already is.
Through his foundation, close to 30B$ have been given to various charities, colleges, scientific researchers, etc.
Although I think he’d argue that eliminating malaria is a more worthwhile investment than your shelters for 0.01% of the population.
[/quote]
Oh I see, so in your opinion, My idea is simply not worthwhile? Well forgive me for not running it by you before I thought of it. Sheesh! Look, you may think that nothing is ever going to threaten the life on the surface of the planet, but the fact is, it has already happened many times, as evidenced by the impact craters found around the globe. So while you may think it’s easier to stop an asteroid or comet by slowly pushin it out of the way, thats fine. It is a good solution, but what if we simply miss one? What if we send out a shuttle to push it and the shuttle fails? What if it’s not a comet or asteroid, but a nuclear war?
Also please tell me where I said bill gates should stop funding things he already does? All I was saying is that there is a lot of money out there being donated for a lot less noble causes than ensuring the survival of our species. I said he could donate the friggin computer system, not stop everything he is doing and fund the whole program. You sensationalize to make your points when simply stating them would make people less defensive about them. If you are indeed trying to ruffle feathers then disregard this notion, however, if you actually think that you are engaging in civil discourse with the goal of understanding, you are not doing a very good job.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Oh I see, so in your opinion, My idea is simply not worthwhile?[/quote]
The idea of saving the human race from a global catastrophe is fine. Admirable even.
It is your proposed solution that I find lacking.
Even if we leave cost out of it, I’m not sure how well or how long we could survive as troglodytes after a major impact. Or a nuclear war, or whatever. If the biosphere is badly damaged, are your underground villages able to withstand thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years of slow planetary evolution before the surface might become liveable again?
Why would you think I think that? Don’t make up positions I don’t have and assign them to me, please.
A) We must insure that we can’t miss one. We’re talking about sizeable chunks of rock here, things large enough to destroy nearly all life following an impact. It’s not a problem if we miss something that’s not big enough to be a concern.
That said, I believe it is entirely possible to completely map out and surveil our solar system so as to not be “surprised” by any of those large rocks floating around.
B) We won’t be pushing those things with a shuttle. This part needs work, although a lot of ideas have already been thought up by scientists.
Don’t forget the benefits that would accrue from being able to move asteroids or comets around: You could take them from the asteroid belt and send them over (put them in orbit around the Earth, like the moon, or maybe set them up in the Lagrange points) and then mine them for content.
Doing so would make space projects a lot easier, since you wouldn’t have to send all the material you need from the Earth. It’d be a lot easier to mine 10 tons of iron out of an orbiting asteroid than to push it out of the Earth’s gravity well.
These kind of technological advances are another reason why I think my solution (well, it’s not really mine, but the one I’d support) is better. Going underground to live would surely provide some advances, but I don’t think they’d be quite as extensive.
As for nuclear war, we’re still fucked. Humans being what they are you can be sure that a race would be on to build weapons able to destroy the enemies’ underground villages. So the undervils built in 2020 would be obsolete with the weapons of 2030. Will you start digging again to survive those new weapons?
I don’t think you can design systems that will allow a majority of humanity to survive man-made war; that would be equivalent to saying you’ve outwitted all men and future men’s ingenuity in killing each other forever. Not likely.
Naturally occurring catastrophe - Those we can plan for. They’re not malicious.
You consider your idea a more noble cause. It doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with you. Some think that alleviating the suffering of the people already in place is a more worthy cause. Anyway, if you’re able to convince philanthropic organizations to fund you, go for it. I’m afraid you’ll have to factor costs back in, though.
I just had a thought: If pure survival of the species is the goal, what we need is to develop an artificial uterus. We can then put millions of embryos in orbit with artificial wombs and instructions on how to gestate and deliver them. That way, all you need for the specie to survive, is to keep a few people around until the world becomes habitable again.
You could also freeze full grown adults, put them in “cryosleep” like they like to say in science fiction stories; and simply have a computer unthaw them when life-friendly conditions are present again. Much cheaper, and scales better to large populations.
Where did I sensationalize?
And I’m not attacking you. I’m pointing out problems I see with implementing your idea. I had no idea you took it so personally.
WTF?
You’ll have to point out to me where I’ve been uncivil, because I can’t see it? Have I insulted you in some way?
Here I was, thinking we were having a fun discussion about various possible ways we could have humanity survive a “deep impact” type of event.
I should’ve read your post all the way through before starting my reply…
Well, never mind. The thread is all yours, I’m out.
Seriously? You don’t know what sensationalizing to make a point is? Ok well when I say that maybe people could donate parts and labor or whatever to lower the costs I gave an example of Microsoft Dontaing the computer system. You responded by saying Bill gates Donates Billions or whatever number you put on it to good causes like fighting malaria. You sensationalized by implying that I would ask bill gates to stop funding his benevolent efforts fighting malaria in children to fund my underground kookworks program. Again, if this was not your intent, why bring up how much he currently donates, or the fact that it is helping fight malaria? By you going out of your way to show me that you think Bill Gates would not donate to my cause I feel is you taking a little personal stake in shooting my idea down. You took a personal interest in this, and of course I would take offense to that since it was my friggin Idea.
But by all means, if you can’t take the heat, run away. Like my favorite Bartender once said. “Why don’t you make like a T T T tree, and G G G Get the fuck outta here.”
Supposedly FEMA has already built an underground city into the mountains of Colorado. I, for one, have seen very very strange, very thick blast-doors jutting out of the side of mountains near Ft. Collins. They were easily big enough for tanks to roll through and solid enough to keep anybody out that wasn’t supposed to be there.
and maybe a huge hamster wheel that everyone could take turns on to generate electricity and pump water and keep us all happy and healthy. That or make the teenagers do it to keep them out of trouble.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Have you recently lost your job (or have you had thoughts of leaving it)?
How are your relationships? Is everything ok with your family?[/quote]
Who you talking to? If you are asking me, I am in nursing school, I currently work in insurance but am indeed leaving my job, well in 3 years when I get done with school.
OG, I suppose I could put a side room in for thunderdom activities. It would have to have a long corridor so it wouldn’t disturb the rest of the village. I could probably squeeze it in over by the red light district.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Have you recently lost your job (or have you had thoughts of leaving it)?
How are your relationships? Is everything ok with your family?
Who you talking to? If you are asking me, I am in nursing school, I currently work in insurance but am indeed leaving my job, well in 3 years when I get done with school.
OG, I suppose I could put a side room in for thunderdom activities. It would have to have a long corridor so it wouldn’t disturb the rest of the village. I could probably squeeze it in over by the red light district.
V[/quote]
sure, shunt me and the ThunderDome to the side but you know it will be the popular side of the cave.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Have you recently lost your job (or have you had thoughts of leaving it)?
How are your relationships? Is everything ok with your family?
Who you talking to? If you are asking me, I am in nursing school, I currently work in insurance but am indeed leaving my job, well in 3 years when I get done with school.
V[/quote]
It’s just that, in my experience, people who become really interested in “survivalist” scenarios have somehow become disenfranchised. Work and family are the ones I’ve seen most. The collapse of society, followed by the rising of a new society is really the hallmark of this type of thing.
I think the idea of a communities capable of being self-sustaining is great. Why not think about creating them for the world as it is now, and not for the world as it would be in case of a doomsday scenario? Why do you find the latter scenario more appealing?
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Why not think about creating them for the world as it is now, and not for the world as it would be in case of a doomsday scenario? Why do you find the latter scenario more appealing?[/quote]
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Have you recently lost your job (or have you had thoughts of leaving it)?
How are your relationships? Is everything ok with your family?
Who you talking to? If you are asking me, I am in nursing school, I currently work in insurance but am indeed leaving my job, well in 3 years when I get done with school.
V
It’s just that, in my experience, people who become really interested in “survivalist” scenarios have somehow become disenfranchised. Work and family are the ones I’ve seen most. The collapse of society, followed by the rising of a new society is really the hallmark of this type of thing.
I think the idea of a communities capable of being self-sustaining is great. Why not think about creating them for the world as it is now, and not for the world as it would be in case of a doomsday scenario? Why do you find the latter scenario more appealing?[/quote]
Actually I have also been throwign around ideas for other means of survival in less catastrophic scenarios, and have acted on some of them already. I just posted the underground village one as it was the most interesting, sensational idea. I am getting ready to propase a disaster plan for my local municipality, including non perishable food supplies and other items that would come in handy should our society collapse for either a short period of time, or an extended period. The most likley case for us would be a massive snowstorm which took out power for an extended period of time. This could disrupt many systems and cause a short term food supply shortage. It could also cause problems with keeping people warm, especially people who still rely on electric heat. I am planning to propose an emergency shelter be built that could house and feed with very basic amenities a decent size group of people for x amount of time.
I am also in the process of buying a freezer and getting a half cow, organic grass fed from a local farmer who does that, some of my family is buying the other half. This will allow me to have a good amount of meat on hand at all times. I am also going to be purchasing some MRE’s and high calorie food bars, a little at a time so I can build up a good suppy of them. Things like this are good for many things, including if you get layed off or fired. You could use them to feed yourself while you are out job hunting and not burn your money on food. This may give you a few extra months to pay rent and car insurance and gas, while you job hunt and allow you to be a little more selective on your next job because it is now not as much of an emergency.
In any event, I would say that none of the things you mentioned have caused me to think like this, I have always been interested in survival. I watch all the survivor mans and Man Vs Wilds. I am however disenfranchised. I was active in the ron paul revolution, and with the state of the dollar and the little care or understanding that our current government is handling our affairs, I feel like some really bad times could be not too far off. Recession is almost a certainty at this point, and a depression isn’t that far fetched of an idea. The entire middle class being plunged into poverty through inflation is another possibility. All of these things while I hope they don’t happen, I will prepare for the best I can with my current means.
OG the red light district will be the place to be, it will include a holographic interactive version of the AWT, You know as a monument to all the beutiful things from our time.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Have you recently lost your job (or have you had thoughts of leaving it)?
How are your relationships? Is everything ok with your family?
Who you talking to? If you are asking me, I am in nursing school, I currently work in insurance but am indeed leaving my job, well in 3 years when I get done with school.
V
It’s just that, in my experience, people who become really interested in “survivalist” scenarios have somehow become disenfranchised. Work and family are the ones I’ve seen most. The collapse of society, followed by the rising of a new society is really the hallmark of this type of thing.
I think the idea of a communities capable of being self-sustaining is great. Why not think about creating them for the world as it is now, and not for the world as it would be in case of a doomsday scenario? Why do you find the latter scenario more appealing?[/quote]
In my last post I mostly addressed your first point. To your second point, I would love to build a town from the ground up where the people lived in modern comfort but were entirely self sufficient and had a zero or negative carbon footprint. There are many peoples including some here in America, but especially around the world who live in self sufficient villages. Doing it with modern ameneties requires careful planning and blending of the old with the new. For example, much of farming technology over the past 100 years has been focused on using technology to increase the amount of crops one farm can produce. I would focus on technology where the right amount of crops are grown and managed BY the technology. Heated greenhouses which are run by computer systems and sensors. The produce would be perfect and the timing of the crops would all be timed. All the humans have to do is plant and pick. There would be little need for large commercial vehicles because everything save for a few items would be made locally. Clothing, food, shelter, the only things that would need to be imported would be electronics. Vehicles would be small and light and could run efficiently on electricity which is gathered by solar or wind or some other renewable source. Life could be stress free and easy, people could focus on learning and art and science.
Anyways, I really don’t think it would be that hard to do. it’s just that it would be a huge change and people resist change.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Have you recently lost your job (or have you had thoughts of leaving it)?
How are your relationships? Is everything ok with your family?
Who you talking to? If you are asking me, I am in nursing school, I currently work in insurance but am indeed leaving my job, well in 3 years when I get done with school.
V
It’s just that, in my experience, people who become really interested in “survivalist” scenarios have somehow become disenfranchised. Work and family are the ones I’ve seen most. The collapse of society, followed by the rising of a new society is really the hallmark of this type of thing.
I think the idea of a communities capable of being self-sustaining is great. Why not think about creating them for the world as it is now, and not for the world as it would be in case of a doomsday scenario? Why do you find the latter scenario more appealing?
In my last post I mostly addressed your first point. To your second point, I would love to build a town from the ground up where the people lived in modern comfort but were entirely self sufficient and had a zero or negative carbon footprint. There are many peoples including some here in America, but especially around the world who live in self sufficient villages. Doing it with modern ameneties requires careful planning and blending of the old with the new. For example, much of farming technology over the past 100 years has been focused on using technology to increase the amount of crops one farm can produce. I would focus on technology where the right amount of crops are grown and managed BY the technology. Heated greenhouses which are run by computer systems and sensors. The produce would be perfect and the timing of the crops would all be timed. All the humans have to do is plant and pick. There would be little need for large commercial vehicles because everything save for a few items would be made locally. Clothing, food, shelter, the only things that would need to be imported would be electronics. Vehicles would be small and light and could run efficiently on electricity which is gathered by solar or wind or some other renewable source. Life could be stress free and easy, people could focus on learning and art and science.
Anyways, I really don’t think it would be that hard to do. it’s just that it would be a huge change and people resist change.
