Recent comments in /f/Futurology

drop_database_run t1_j8gzkl6 wrote

Reply to comment by iobeson in Drawing the line between positive use of technology and degeneracy by [deleted]

I think that is his point, you can be a lazy bum if you want, but if we all become lazy bums that rot in our sheets we will go extinct. So where is the balance point? Where do we put the line that maintains society? Murder bad. But we can clone someone so it's fine, just a lengthy respawn. But they begin killing people faster than we can clone them, now is this where we draw the line? Or despite the cloning/respawning do we continue to outlaw murder?

Not arguing for its legalization, I just feel like it's an argument that proves a point

−15

SoylentRox t1_j8gypbq wrote

Reply to comment by DoktoroKiu in Would an arcology be conceivably possible? by peregrinkm

As long as you have some minimum number of people (specialized skills) and enough manufacturing machinery, this won't happen.

I agree there are scenarios where humans might die, but I just don't feel you are arguing in good faith. "despite many decades of trying". What are you talking about? There was biosphere 2. And..........................

What else? Literally when has this ever been tried? The ISS is far too small to attempt a closed loop life support system. So I know of 0 examples other than a small cult effort that hit problems because I recall they had CO2 releasing from the concrete pad the biosphere was built on, no automation (subsidence farming is very labor intensive), no genetically engineered crops to help (hadn't been invented yet)...

1

Johnmik5400 t1_j8gyiv4 wrote

Reply to Would an arcology be conceivably possible? by peregrinkm

Well, conceivably it is possible. The theory concerning ecosystem science , however, is something scientist THINK that they know. Our science is arrogant, self serving, and is belief and agenda driven. The constant lies of climate change is one of the worst ever conceived. If the climate is so terrible; why do the elite like Obama, Gates, et. al, buy grand estates right on the coast? All that flooding! Also, the inaccurate temperature data from roof top equipment, on tarmacs of airports, etc. Now, the self cobtained biosystem would work if the scientists will be honest when a problem arises. There are elements that we haven't even begun to undetstand. Particles from outer space come into our atmosphere. We have no idea what , or if there is an effect on our biosphere. Yes, I am very doubtful about most of our science because of the constant deception.

1

DoktoroKiu t1_j8gyd0h wrote

Reply to comment by SoylentRox in Would an arcology be conceivably possible? by peregrinkm

The things you point to are still dependent on the Earth's biosphere. If you want a truly isolated system with no inputs other than sunlight you are screwed if anything becomes too unbalanced. The systems are complex enough that we cannot yet engineer them to be stable the way the Earth is, despite many decades of trying.

I do think that if it became important enough we might put enough resources into this problem to find a way, but as far as we know it may require a much larger biosphere to achieve it than would be practical.

And all of this is assuming you have fully self-sufficient manufacturing capabilities for everything you need to maintain these systems, which is itself a complex problem, especially regarding microelectronic components or other high-technology tools. They don't last forever, so even if you did figure out the biosphere problem your work is not finished.

2

Individual_Ad_3036 t1_j8gx6ub wrote

Reply to Would an arcology be conceivably possible? by peregrinkm

a lot of work remains to be done. we need to better understand the ways these systems fail. total closed loop, i don't think so. with periodic supply runs, probably say 95 or 99% closed loop. lunar regolith could be processed to produce some resources, same with martian terrain. you would still want most of your technology (and it's very long supply chains) shipped from earth, and whatever other resources you happened to need.

quality of life is a concern. modern electronics would take a very substantial population, probably in the millions to produce in situ and that's assuming they build off already researched technology from earth.

1

iobeson t1_j8gwwce wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Drawing the line between positive use of technology and degeneracy by [deleted]

What you don't understand is what this person explained IS the healthy balance. You are the one with extreme ideas, not them. The healthy balance is letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. That means we aren't going to the ultra extreme and letting people fuck their furry robots in public, they have to do it behind closed doors.

26

SoylentRox t1_j8gwv4n wrote

Reply to comment by pete_68 in Would an arcology be conceivably possible? by peregrinkm

But why can't we just order robots to grow whatever we need.

I just don't see it. Biosphere 2 was small scale, had limited reserves of oxygen etc. A sealed biodome on earth can pull in oxygen still from the earths atmosphere even if it is sterile or full of bioweapons or radioactive etc.

1