🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 19273@nmt.edu, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
> 	Yet,  I think you are taking a few of these concepts just a little
> bit too far.  I don't see why an arcology on earth needs to recycle it's
> air.  A human being does not inherently produce pollution

A human being does not produce much pollution or exhale much in the way
of scarce materials, but a starship-city would house not only human beings
but all of their economic activities, and some of those would emit scarce
materials.

For the air inside an arcopolis (my preferred name for what Soleri calls
an arcology) to be fit for humans to breathe, it would need to be purified
in ways that would make it too good to be disposed of to the outside. It
would not make economic sense to do so, for the same reason an air
conditioning system recools the interior air of a building instead of
continually drawing in more air from the outside.

As it turns out, however, there are a few trace elements we need that
undergo solid evaporation at rates that would become significant over
geologic time. Selenium, for example. Cheaper to keep it than to let it go.

> I don't see why we need to entirely separate ourselves from it --
> prehaps concentrating a good part of our population in arcologies might
> help,  but I would not want to live in an arcology if I didn't have some
> kind of reasonable access to natural spaces.

What I am proposing to separate from the natural ecosystem is not humanity
but its principal life-support system -- its economy, if you will. People
could still visit natural scenery. Indeed, doing so would be important to
help maintain the ethos of protecting it, which would need to continue to
prevent environmental backsliding that could occur at any time.

If you live in a city, how much nature do you get to enjoy now? A yard?
A park? You could have those things *inside* an arcopolis. Plenty of space.
Travel to a wilderness preserve? Now it's a long trip, and places like
Yosemite are getting crowded. Most land is now private, devoted to farms,
suburbs, highways, and the like. Can't visit them without an invitation.
I proposed that the *entire* surface of the planet be restored and made
available for scenery and recreation. It would have to be protected by 
some reasonable rules. Couldn't have too many people visiting a few popular
places. Have to spread them out, in space and in time. Would also need to
require them not to carry scarce materials that they might lose on the
visit. Everything they brought with them would need to be composed of
common materials: organics, silicates. Leave the metals at home.

But they would have to return to the city. Except for a few people whose
jobs required them to remain in the wilderness, like naturalists and
rangers, they would not be allowed to build permanent shelters, to till
the ground, cut trees, fill in swamps, or otherwise disturb the habitats.
They could do a little hunting and fishing -- but only for food, and then
only in limited amounts. No trophies. And certainly no bringing any back
for people in the city.

There would be no surface agriculture. We are already close to being able
to produce all food in factories, and I propose that these compact cities
do just that. We are not talking C-rations here. Gourmet stuff, without
any additives or pesticides. It can be done, and not much more expensively
than food is produced now.

Now just because my proposed starship-cities would be *designed* to retain
materials down to less than 1 part in 10^10 doesn't mean that they would
in practice. There would be some inevitable accidents and human malfeasance
which would cause some unplanned losses and necessitate some recovery. The
idea, however, is to reduce the average rate to such a low level that what
is needed could be recovered from sea water without disturbing oceanic life
in any significant way.

You need to design to severe standards in order to get acceptible perfor-
mance in practice. And once you get retention rates down to less than 1
part in 10^3, it is not that much more expensive to get them down to less
than one part in 10^10. It is that first three orders of magnitude that
are the hardest, that require a restructuring of human settlement patterns.

Nature will not be safe from Man until Man doesn't need it for anything
except scenery and occasional recreation.

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141