rehaulku@... wrote:

> I would like to discuss about philosophy and psychology of space
> settlements.

My philosophy of space settlements is carrot and stick.

The stick is that sooner or later human life on earth is
going to end.

Whether it is a (bioengineered?) disease, or a meteorite or
a nuclear war, ecological collapse or whatever, sooner
or later there's going to be a big problem. All species on
earth eventually die. It's inevitable.

The only chance for human survival is exponential population
growth. The only long term place for population to grow is
into space.
The carrot is that as pointed out by O'Neill technological
civilisation is actually easier and cheaper in space (in
the long run, in the short run the technology is harder and
as or more expensive.) Energy is quite plentiful (sunlight
24x7), material is far apart, but quite accessible, and
probably cheaper to separate than on earth due to the energy
supply.

Also, the other half of the carrot, big money is going to
be made in space. There's a lot of money there. (Actually
there's already a lot of money being made in space right
now.)

From: rehaulku@... [mailto:rehaulku@...]

Human in the space is very different than human on the mother planet
Earth. We have seen that astronauts and cosmonots have lived many
problems in the space in the last 40 years. Nobody says how to solve
them.
I would like to discuss about philosophy and psychology of space
settlements.

One of the advantages I think of following the O'Neill plan is that many of
these problems are solved. The deleterious effects of 0-G are solved via
spin gravity. The problem of cosmic-ray particles is solved by slag
shields. People would live in wide open spaces in groups of 10,000 or more,
bathed in sunlight, and surrounded by greenery. I think these would solve
many of the psychological problems which might occur with other less
accommodating plans for settlements beyond the Earth.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
rehaulku@... [mailto:rehaulku@...]

Human in the space is very different than human on the mother planet
Earth. We have seen that astronauts and cosmonots have lived many
problems in the space in the last 40 years. Nobody says how to solve
them.
I would like to discuss about philosophy and psychology of space
settlements.
One of the advantages I think of following the O'Neill plan is that many of these problems are solved. The deleterious effects of 0-G are solved via spin gravity. The problem of cosmic-ray particles is solved by slag shields. People would live in wide open spaces in groups of 10,000 or more, bathed in sunlight, and surrounded by greenery. I think these would solve many of the psychological problems which might occur with other less accommodating plans for settlements beyond the Earth.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Michael,

I think that water would be preferable to slag, especially since it
provides natural shielding from UV and provides soft light for plants
as well as humans.

I am inclined toward building upon both O'Neil and Savage's ideas.
O'Neil recognizes the need for gravity, and Savage the need for steps
here on earth in order to fund and prepare the technologies for space
colonization. His idea of using lasers in combination with
electromagnets in a vacuum tube have merrit and are worth analysis.

We simply must achieve a break through to LEO if we are ever to
colonize space. We must also recognize the need for many thousands of
people living in ocean based colonies that are dedicated toward
breaking away from earth in order to fund the effort. Waiting for
NASA is a fools errend IMO. The ocean colonies are ideal for adaption
since people who get cold feet can row back to shore :-)

Cheers,

Tom

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: rehaulku@h... [mailto:rehaulku@h...]
>
> Human in the space is very different than human on the mother
planet
> Earth. We have seen that astronauts and cosmonots have lived many
> problems in the space in the last 40 years. Nobody says how to
solve
> them.
> I would like to discuss about philosophy and psychology of space
> settlements.
>
> One of the advantages I think of following the O'Neill plan is that
many of
> these problems are solved. The deleterious effects of 0-G are
solved via
> spin gravity. The problem of cosmic-ray particles is solved by slag
> shields. People would live in wide open spaces in groups of 10,000
or more,
> bathed in sunlight, and surrounded by greenery. I think these
would solve

From: tntucker@... [mailto:tntucker@...]

I think that water would be preferable to slag, especially since it
provides natural shielding from UV and provides soft light for plants
as well as humans.

I think O'Neill proposed slag (and then using mirrors to reflect in
sunlight) because the assumed raw material base was the moon, which is very
deficient in hydrogen. Savage assumes a space launcher so efficient and
inexpensive that hauling up the hydrogen for that much water from Earth will
be economical. Maybe.

I think any glass wall would filter out the UV, though. The cosmic ray
particles are what we mostly have to worry about.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
tntucker@... [mailto:tntucker@...]
I think that water would be preferable to slag, especially since it
provides natural shielding from UV and provides soft light for plants
as well as humans.

I think O'Neill proposed slag (and then using mirrors to reflect in sunlight) because the assumed raw material base was the moon, which is very deficient in hydrogen. Savage assumes a space launcher so efficient and inexpensive that hauling up the hydrogen for that much water from Earth will be economical. Maybe.

I think any glass wall would filter out the UV, though. The cosmic ray particles are what we mostly have to worry about.

Regards,
Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, tntucker@c... wrote:
>

> We simply must achieve a break through to LEO if we are ever to
> colonize space. We must also recognize the need for many thousands
of
> people living in ocean based colonies that are dedicated toward
> breaking away from earth in order to fund the effort. Waiting for
> NASA is a fools errend IMO. The ocean colonies are ideal for
adaption
> since people who get cold feet can row back to shore :-)
>

There is a fallacy in the logic that Savage has. First there is no
need to tie ocean colonies to space exploration. In fact if you wanted
financing for an ocean colony, your best bet is not to tie it to space
colonization in any way.

tntucker@... wrote:
. We must also recognize the need for many thousandsof
people living in ocean based colonies that are dedicated toward
breaking away from earth in order to fund the effort. Waiting for
NASA is a fools errend IMO. The ocean colonies are ideal for adaption
since people who get cold feet can row back to shore :-)

While I think ocean colonies are very cool, I don't think they will makemuch difference for space colonization. Ocean colonists will probablyhave their own concerns and be about as interested in space as their land-livingcounterparts, maybe a little more, but not much.
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Combs, Mike wrote:

> I think any glass wall would filter out the UV, though. The cosmic ray
> particles are what we mostly have to worry about.

It gets rid of UV-B- I don't know about UV-C. Glass is pretty
transparent to UV-A though.

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Ian Woollard
> Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> > I think any glass wall would filter out the UV, though. The
cosmic ray
> > particles are what we mostly have to worry about.
>
> It gets rid of UV-B- I don't know about UV-C. Glass is pretty
> transparent to UV-A though.

Ian,

Depends on the type of glass and what you put in it.

Darren Brown

Al, Tom,

How about arcologies instead of an ocean colony? It should be
cheaper and would kill three birds with one stone, urban sprawl,
housing shortage and practice for building orbital habitats, who
knows it might even help fund the start of a habitat.

Darren Brown

tntucker@... wrote: .
We must also recognize the need for many thousands of
people living in ocean based colonies that are dedicated toward
breaking away from earth in order to fund the effort. Waiting for
NASA is a fools errend IMO. The ocean colonies are ideal for adaption
since people who get cold feet can row back to shore :-)

While I think ocean colonies are very cool, I don't think they will
make much difference for space colonization. Ocean colonists will
probably have their own concerns and be about as interested in space
as their land-living counterparts, maybe a little more, but not much.

--
Al Globus

I'm not too sure what an arcology is. Is is a large, more-or-lessclosed habitat on land?
Darren Brown wrote:
Al, Tom,
How about arcologies instead of an ocean colony? It should be
cheaper and would kill three birds with one stone, urban sprawl,
housing shortage and practice for building orbital habitats, who
knows it might even help fund the start of a habitat.
Darren Brown
tntucker@... wrote: .
We must also recognize the need for many thousands of
people living in ocean based colonies that are dedicated toward
breaking away from earth in order to fund the effort. Waiting for
NASA is a fools errend IMO. The ocean colonies are ideal for adaption
since people who get cold feet can row back to shore :-)

While I think ocean colonies are very cool, I don't think they will
make much difference for space colonization. Ocean colonistswill
probably have their own concerns and be about as interested in space
as their land-living counterparts, maybe a little more, but not much.
Al Globus
Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.
I think we should:
1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failurerate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels willneed to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.
2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroidare
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand spacecolonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.
3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need theircolony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearbystars.
Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.

Al Globus wrote:

> I'm not too sure what an arcology is. Is is a large, more-or-less
> closed habitat on land?
>

Al,

You have it in a nutshell. Basically its a city in a box. I dont
know what city you live in so Ill use my home town and country as a
model, excuse the length. I have no idea what you know about Australia
but our largest city is Sydney with about 4 million people, Canberra
where I live has about 300,000. About 10yrs ago I lived in Sydney and
my commute to work each day was about an hour and a bit each morning and
the same at night, in that time all I saw was concrete, cars, roads and
cityscape, not what I really wanted first thing in the morning, and I
didnt even live on the fringe of the city. Now in Canberra I travel
about the same distance but it only takes me 15mins and I see forests,
farms and a pleasant river crossing, much better. So living in Canberra
rather than Sydney has the advantages of living in a large country town
and because its the national capital it even has a few of the services
and resources that big cities have but not all of them so there are a
few things I would like to have that I miss out on here, well thats
life.

Urban sprawl is a problem throughout the developed world and soon we are
going to be forced to address it, you should see the article in the
December 2000 edition of Scientific American for a something on it. One
of the problems is that building and maintaining the infrastructure of a
typical suburb is an expensive exercise and then you have to set aside
room for roads and parking places around the shopping centres and so
on. An arcology on the other hand is a high density dwelling that
avoids this type of problem by building up rather than out. If you were
to take all of Canberra and cut it up into squares 2kms by 2kms and then
stacked them on top of each other with a 5 metre gap between them they
would be about 850 metres high. Canberra is a very open city with lots
of green space so in this notional building there would be a lot of
non-habitation space, non-industrial/office space as well as such things
as roads, footpaths (sidewalks to you), stormwater drains, land-fills,
water reservoirs and all the other things that cities need and it would
house 300,000 people. The advantages are that you would not need roads,
elevators, travelators (moving sidewalks) and just walking would be all
that is needed, with the longest average distance in a single trip being
only a kilometre or a ten to twenty minutes. All the infrastructures
would be cheaper and in some cases not needed, the energy used by each
person is lower on average due to less needed for transport and by the
use of large common heating/cooling units that are more efficient and
have a lower cost per unit work. The internal nature of the dwellings
and work spaces means that you dont have to worry about such things as
storm damage and can take advantage of large industrial scale damage
control for such things as fire and earthquake. You can have shopping
and recreation facilities in central locations and the top floor can be
given over to open air sports.
In the interests of fair play Ill have a go at some of the
disadvantages (& give a possible solution at the same time:-); most
people when they argue against arcologies first point to the fact that
they are expensive and as such they are only going to be found in the
richer counties and then only in the up market areas, in a way this is
true but then in poor countries those at the bottom dont get much now
so anything is going to be more expensive and in developed countries
its the initial cost and the fear of change that stop this kind of
development. Strong arcology development would allow a huge increase in
local population and a subsequent impact on the environment, again true
but proper management and use of recycling technologies could overcome
this. People would have to give up a backyard and personal green space,
not true at all, if you look at basic arcology designs they tend to be
simple shapes and this gives a lack of outside surface but Ive seen
complex designs that allow up to 80% of dwellings to have a private of a
semi-private yard, that is a small private yard with a larger common
area shared with 5-10 houses around you. They are an artificial way of
living, Ive heard this argument from a number of people who really seem
serious, I always ask them when they are going to strip naked and live
in a cave.
There are a lot more arguments Ive heard both in favour and against
such projects. If you ever go to Japan you can find a number of
sub-arcologies there, large buildings that house shopping centres,
entertainment, offices, public transport stations and residential units,
it would be possible in this one building to live perhaps 75% of your
life, of course there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere. The
building of an arcology would be great practice for the building of an
orbital as they share a number of problems and solutions.

There is a good book called Oath of Fidelity by Larry Niven & Jerry
Pournelle which is set in an arcology and is about the problems they
face.

The father of the arcology is Paolo Soleri, the following is from the
Britannica web site;

Darren Brown
Canberra Australia

Soleri, Paolo

b. June 21, 1919, Turin, Italy

Italian-born American architect and designer who was one of the
best-known utopian city
planners of the 20th century.

Soleri received a doctorate in architecture from the Turin Polytechnic
in 1946, and from 1947 to 1949 he worked under Frank Lloyd Wright in
Arizona. He returned to Italy for a time and then in 1955 settled
permanently in the United States, in Scottsdale, Ariz. Beginning in 1959
with his designs for Mesa City (a desert city housing two million
people), Soleri drew up the plans of a series of gigantic urban centres
that extend vertically into space rather than horizontally along the
ground. These megastructures were designed both to conserve the natural
surroundings and to intensify the human activities of living and working
by condensing them spatially. The resulting integrated, total
environments, Soleri hoped, would provide for all the needs of rational,
aesthetic human beings. Soleri coined the term arcology (from
"architecture" and "ecology") to describe his utopian constructions,
which he delineated in drawings of great beauty and imagination. The
exhibition of his drawings and models in major American cities in 1970
brought him widespread public notice. Soleri's Arcology: The City in the
Image of Man (1969) provides a good overview of his ideas and designs.

In 1970 Soleri began to build a version of Mesa City, though not in the
ambitious terms of the original drawings. In Arizona, between Phoenix
and Flagstaff, he began the construction of a single structure called
Arcosanti, which would have a population of 5,000. The work, by unpaid
students, proceeded slowly and was partially financed by the sale of the
ceramic and copper wind bells Soleri produced.

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
Al,

First let me say I'm sorry to heard that your wife has a disability.
I'm pleased to say that today we are able to do much to enable
anybody with a disability to more fully participate in society and
this is a trend that is continuing, I have also seen signs of greater
acceptance in the general population but there is still a lot to do.

So let's have a look at your points and I will grant you that on the
surface they are reasonable ones. When my wife does the shopping for
the groceries (Stop, before you make any comment about it being the
wife doing the shopping, let assure you it's only this way because
she works part time and is at home when it is most convenient to do
the shopping and I am not, when I am home, rarely, I also do it,
besides she doesn't agree with me about what is best to buy), she
buys enough to last for the fortnight, now, but when we were first
married we would only get enough to last for a few days. The reason
for the change, is the distance to the markets and changes in our
lifestyles over the last twenty years. A very good friend and her
husband for a time lived on a navy base and while there, they seldom
if ever went shopping, rather they formed local groups (in most cases
of the 5-8 houses nearest) and made bulk orders from the Navy store
and had it delivered. One of my wife's friends lives with her
husband on a large farm in upper New South Wales and they go shopping
for most items only twice a year and then have the lot shipped out to
the farm in a large truck, only going into town for a few staples
once a week or so. Each shopping strategy is different in response
to the situation the couples find themselves in. People are very
adaptable and change patterns of behaviour to suit the moment.

Now, with no disrespect to either you or your wife, you may find that
in a WELL (and that's the key word) designed arcology some of the day
to day problems people with a disability face may disappear of be
greatly reduced. Take your example of shopping with an infant, a two
year old and a handicap that limits mobility. You are right, this
would be a daunting undertaking but it is so now.

In the shopping centre nearest to my house they have a very cheap
child minding centre where a parent can safely leave any children
while they go shopping, the centre management underwrite the costs
because it attracts harried mothers. This could just as easily be
applied to an entire arcology, in fact it is easier, if I wanted to
put a crche within a ten minute walk of every house in Canberra then
I would need hundreds, perhaps thousands of them and for certain, not
all would have enough children to make them viable, in the arcology,
I would need only a handful.

Travel within the building would be very much like moving around
inside a large shopping mall. If the person was so disabled that they
could not browse a shopping centre then moving around the arcology
would present the same barriers. If we look at a simple shopping
trip in a normal city and in an arcology (granted, not all cities or
for that matter arcologies are equal but this is the best I can do)
side by side you will see the advantages (I hope;-). In the city you
leave your house and get into your car to drive to the shopping
centre, you look for a park and exit the car, enter the shopping
centre, browse the shops and make purchases, carry your purchases
back to your car and return home; in the arcology you leave your home
and walk to the elevator or if disabled ride your electric scooter
(the small one person, tricycles that have a walking pace top speed)
to them, the elevators need to be large and they need to build ramps
rather than stairs, go down a few floors and walk 400 metres to the
commercial area or again ride the scooter, enter the shops and make
your purchases and then return home. Now here is where the arcology
is the better option, if you had taken the children with you, there
are no roads with speeding cars and by clipping a small passive radio
tag to the child they can not run away and get lost. If you are on
the scooter, the same lack of cars removes the biggest single danger
to you. If your package is too large to carry then you have it
delivered by way of robotic carrier, this can be a pneumatic
(lockable for the paranoid) tube or if you don't want to use that
much space how about a sealed box attached to a mobile unit that
follows imbedded guide wires to your house.

The key to this is to make sure that the corridors that wind through
the arcology are wide enough and here what's best has to battle with
the developers desire to put as much income generating space in as
possible and each square metre of service space and corridor is a
square metre less of income space.

I think that arcologies are a better option for those who for reasons
of age, physical limits or the need to care for children, they
require no more effort than a regular city and offer more in the way
of advantages.

Darren Brown

DB:
The advantages [of an arcology] are that you would not need roads,
elevators, travelators (moving sidewalk's) and just walking would be
all
that is needed, with the longest average distance in a single trip
being
only a kilometre or a ten to twenty minutes.
AG:
Try that with a week's worth of groceries, an infant, and a two-year
old. Or try it if you're severely handicapped (as my wife is). The
notion that you don't need vehicles works great if you're single,
young, fit, and have no dependents.
--
Al Globus

For some of the experience of an arcology, visit one of the mega-
malls, like Mall of the Americas or West Edmonton Mall. I worked in
West Edmonton Mall for over a year. The place is HUGE. Over 5
million square feet; 800+ shops; a hotel; a waterpark with a wave
pool and 13-story waterslide; an indoor saltwater lake with dolphins,
a full-sized replica of the Santa Maria and six submarines (more
subs, by the way, then the entire Canadian Navy); a miniature golf
course; an amusement park featuring a triple-loop rollercoaster; the
world's largest McDonald's; an NHL sized hockey rink; and of course
the world's largest parking lot. If they added apartment complexes
and a hospital, you might never have to go outside again. The whole
thing, parking lot and all, sits on an 8 block by 8 block square.

West Edmonton Mall starts to feel crowded when there are more than
100000 people inside the building. Granted, only a few hundred are
living there at any one time in the hotel, but that is still a lot of
people in one building.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
> Al,
>
> First let me say I'm sorry to heard that your wife has a
disability.
> I'm pleased to say that today we are able to do much to enable
> anybody with a disability to more fully participate in society and
> this is a trend that is continuing, I have also seen signs of
greater
> acceptance in the general population but there is still a lot to do.
>
> So let's have a look at your points and I will grant you that on
the
> surface they are reasonable ones. When my wife does the shopping
for
> the groceries (Stop, before you make any comment about it being the
> wife doing the shopping, let assure you it's only this way because
> she works part time and is at home when it is most convenient to do
> the shopping and I am not, when I am home, rarely, I also do it,
> besides she doesn't agree with me about what is best to buy), she
> buys enough to last for the fortnight, now, but when we were first
> married we would only get enough to last for a few days. The
reason
> for the change, is the distance to the markets and changes in our
> lifestyles over the last twenty years. A very good friend and her
> husband for a time lived on a navy base and while there, they
seldom
> if ever went shopping, rather they formed local groups (in most
cases
> of the 5-8 houses nearest) and made bulk orders from the Navy store
> and had it delivered. One of my wife's friends lives with her
> husband on a large farm in upper New South Wales and they go
shopping
> for most items only twice a year and then have the lot shipped out
to
> the farm in a large truck, only going into town for a few staples
> once a week or so. Each shopping strategy is different in response
> to the situation the couples find themselves in. People are very
> adaptable and change patterns of behaviour to suit the moment.
>
> Now, with no disrespect to either you or your wife, you may find
that
> in a WELL (and that's the key word) designed arcology some of the
day
> to day problems people with a disability face may disappear of be
> greatly reduced. Take your example of shopping with an infant, a
two
> year old and a handicap that limits mobility. You are right, this
> would be a daunting undertaking but it is so now.
>
> In the shopping centre nearest to my house they have a very cheap
> child minding centre where a parent can safely leave any children
> while they go shopping, the centre management underwrite the costs
> because it attracts harried mothers. This could just as easily be
> applied to an entire arcology, in fact it is easier, if I wanted to
> put a crche within a ten minute walk of every house in Canberra
then
> I would need hundreds, perhaps thousands of them and for certain,
not
> all would have enough children to make them viable, in the
arcology,
> I would need only a handful.
>
> Travel within the building would be very much like moving around
> inside a large shopping mall. If the person was so disabled that
they
> could not browse a shopping centre then moving around the arcology
> would present the same barriers. If we look at a simple shopping
> trip in a normal city and in an arcology (granted, not all cities
or
> for that matter arcologies are equal but this is the best I can do)
> side by side you will see the advantages (I hope;-). In the city
you
> leave your house and get into your car to drive to the shopping
> centre, you look for a park and exit the car, enter the shopping
> centre, browse the shops and make purchases, carry your purchases
> back to your car and return home; in the arcology you leave your
home
> and walk to the elevator or if disabled ride your electric scooter
> (the small one person, tricycles that have a walking pace top
speed)
> to them, the elevators need to be large and they need to build
ramps
> rather than stairs, go down a few floors and walk 400 metres to the
> commercial area or again ride the scooter, enter the shops and make
> your purchases and then return home. Now here is where the
arcology
> is the better option, if you had taken the children with you, there
> are no roads with speeding cars and by clipping a small passive
radio
> tag to the child they can not run away and get lost. If you are on
> the scooter, the same lack of cars removes the biggest single
danger
> to you. If your package is too large to carry then you have it
> delivered by way of robotic carrier, this can be a pneumatic
> (lockable for the paranoid) tube or if you don't want to use that
> much space how about a sealed box attached to a mobile unit that
> follows imbedded guide wires to your house.
>
> The key to this is to make sure that the corridors that wind
through
> the arcology are wide enough and here what's best has to battle
with
> the developers desire to put as much income generating space in as
> possible and each square metre of service space and corridor is a
> square metre less of income space.
>
> I think that arcologies are a better option for those who for
reasons
> of age, physical limits or the need to care for children, they
> require no more effort than a regular city and offer more in the
way
> of advantages.
>
> Darren Brown
>
> DB:
> The advantages [of an arcology] are that you would not need roads,
> elevators, travelators (moving sidewalk's) and just walking would
be
> all
> that is needed, with the longest average distance in a single trip
> being
> only a kilometre or a ten to twenty minutes.
> AG:
> Try that with a week's worth of groceries, an infant, and a two-
year

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Ed Minchau"
> For some of the experience of an arcology, visit one of the mega-
> malls, like Mall of the Americas or West Edmonton Mall. I worked in
> West Edmonton Mall for over a year. The place is HUGE. Over 5
> million square feet; 800+ shops; a hotel; a waterpark with a wave
> pool and 13-story waterslide; an indoor saltwater lake with
dolphins,
> a full-sized replica of the Santa Maria and six submarines (more
> subs, by the way, then the entire Canadian Navy); a miniature golf
> course; an amusement park featuring a triple-loop rollercoaster; the
> world's largest McDonald's; an NHL sized hockey rink; and of course
> the world's largest parking lot. If they added apartment complexes
> and a hospital, you might never have to go outside again. The whole
> thing, parking lot and all, sits on an 8 block by 8 block square.

You would also have to add industry, financial centers, and the like.
You would have to require that any residence must leave the premises
if they are not employed in the arcology because there is no way to
commute to another on.

The arcology idea is okey if you can physically create a self
sustaining economy. I would be willing to beilieve that would put the
population of the arcology well into the million people with all the
problems associated with a city that size. You could plan it properly
to have 24 hour public transportation supported by the arcology. The
longest I would tolerate is about an hour commute either way.

>
> West Edmonton Mall starts to feel crowded when there are more than
> 100000 people inside the building. Granted, only a few hundred are
> living there at any one time in the hotel, but that is still a lot
of
> people in one building.
>
> :) ed
>
> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Darren Brown"
> > --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
> > Al,
> >
> > First let me say I'm sorry to heard that your wife has a
> disability.
> > I'm pleased to say that today we are able to do much to enable
> > anybody with a disability to more fully participate in society and
> > this is a trend that is continuing, I have also seen signs of
> greater
> > acceptance in the general population but there is still a lot to
do.
> >
> > So let's have a look at your points and I will grant you that on
> the
> > surface they are reasonable ones. When my wife does the shopping
> for
> > the groceries (Stop, before you make any comment about it being
the
> > wife doing the shopping, let assure you it's only this way because
> > she works part time and is at home when it is most convenient to
do
> > the shopping and I am not, when I am home, rarely, I also do it,
> > besides she doesn't agree with me about what is best to buy), she
> > buys enough to last for the fortnight, now, but when we were first
> > married we would only get enough to last for a few days. The
> reason
> > for the change, is the distance to the markets and changes in our
> > lifestyles over the last twenty years. A very good friend and her
> > husband for a time lived on a navy base and while there, they
> seldom
> > if ever went shopping, rather they formed local groups (in most
> cases
> > of the 5-8 houses nearest) and made bulk orders from the Navy
store
> > and had it delivered. One of my wife's friends lives with her
> > husband on a large farm in upper New South Wales and they go
> shopping
> > for most items only twice a year and then have the lot shipped out
> to
> > the farm in a large truck, only going into town for a few staples
> > once a week or so. Each shopping strategy is different in
response
> > to the situation the couples find themselves in. People are very
> > adaptable and change patterns of behaviour to suit the moment.
> >
> > Now, with no disrespect to either you or your wife, you may find
> that
> > in a WELL (and that's the key word) designed arcology some of the
> day
> > to day problems people with a disability face may disappear of be
> > greatly reduced. Take your example of shopping with an infant, a
> two
> > year old and a handicap that limits mobility. You are right, this
> > would be a daunting undertaking but it is so now.
> >
> > In the shopping centre nearest to my house they have a very cheap
> > child minding centre where a parent can safely leave any children
> > while they go shopping, the centre management underwrite the costs
> > because it attracts harried mothers. This could just as easily be
> > applied to an entire arcology, in fact it is easier, if I wanted
to
> > put a crche within a ten minute walk of every house in Canberra
> then
> > I would need hundreds, perhaps thousands of them and for certain,
> not
> > all would have enough children to make them viable, in the
> arcology,
> > I would need only a handful.
> >
> > Travel within the building would be very much like moving around
> > inside a large shopping mall. If the person was so disabled that
> they
> > could not browse a shopping centre then moving around the arcology
> > would present the same barriers. If we look at a simple shopping
> > trip in a normal city and in an arcology (granted, not all cities
> or
> > for that matter arcologies are equal but this is the best I can
do)
> > side by side you will see the advantages (I hope;-). In the city
> you
> > leave your house and get into your car to drive to the shopping
> > centre, you look for a park and exit the car, enter the shopping
> > centre, browse the shops and make purchases, carry your purchases
> > back to your car and return home; in the arcology you leave your
> home
> > and walk to the elevator or if disabled ride your electric scooter
> > (the small one person, tricycles that have a walking pace top
> speed)
> > to them, the elevators need to be large and they need to build
> ramps
> > rather than stairs, go down a few floors and walk 400 metres to
the
> > commercial area or again ride the scooter, enter the shops and
make
> > your purchases and then return home. Now here is where the
> arcology
> > is the better option, if you had taken the children with you,
there
> > are no roads with speeding cars and by clipping a small passive
> radio
> > tag to the child they can not run away and get lost. If you are
on
> > the scooter, the same lack of cars removes the biggest single
> danger
> > to you. If your package is too large to carry then you have it
> > delivered by way of robotic carrier, this can be a pneumatic
> > (lockable for the paranoid) tube or if you don't want to use that
> > much space how about a sealed box attached to a mobile unit that
> > follows imbedded guide wires to your house.
> >
> > The key to this is to make sure that the corridors that wind
> through
> > the arcology are wide enough and here what's best has to battle
> with
> > the developers desire to put as much income generating space in as
> > possible and each square metre of service space and corridor is a
> > square metre less of income space.
> >
> > I think that arcologies are a better option for those who for
> reasons
> > of age, physical limits or the need to care for children, they
> > require no more effort than a regular city and offer more in the
> way
> > of advantages.
> >
> > Darren Brown
> >
> > DB:
> > The advantages [of an arcology] are that you would not need roads,
> > elevators, travelators (moving sidewalk's) and just walking would
> be
> > all
> > that is needed, with the longest average distance in a single trip
> > being
> > only a kilometre or a ten to twenty minutes.
> > AG:
> > Try that with a week's worth of groceries, an infant, and a two-
> year
> > old. Or try it if you're severely handicapped (as my wife is).
The