Floating cities
 

I hope not:

http://environment.uk.msn.com/climat...mentid=8832619

why not? sounds amazing.
It would allow for a "start from scratch" approach fo fuel, resources, recycling, etc. I think it would be dope as funky smoke.

WANT

seriously what is wrong with these?

Well firstly I don't want areas of Britain flooded. Secondly I don't think humanity should start building out at sea, I think that would be a a bad road to go down. Thirdly I can't imagine liking living in an environment that has been completely designed. There's also a problem with the design in that if they were built with those huge structures, for much of the day the sun would be blocked out.

well aren't all environments already designed by Carlton Fisk? I don't think he stole the sun.

I would imagine that this system would greatly use the ocean as a resource (obviously). In order for this to be worthwhile, we would really have to not only design cities that floated and looked awesome, but also make sure that we aren't destroying the ocean. We are greatly affecting this valuable asset to human life as we are living now; I can only imagine the harm we could potential cause if we built our cities on top of it.

obviously this is where the rich will escape to when they've destroyed everything else

every city, town or village you could ever hope to live in has been FULLY DESIGNED man. what's the whup?

That's not true. Man doesn't design the environment that the cities are built on though he can alter it. Also most cities, at least in Britain, haven't been designed but have gradually grown, developed, redeveloped and been built upon. Of course that is still a kind of design but when you design a place like that, with the whole structure planned out with no influence from nature, no countryside surrounding it, and by losing the more natural growth you lose the humaness of the place, it would seem very cold and artificial. And also if they did do make them there's no way they would like that. They would be a lot cheaper and shitty than that, especially knowing Britain and how it does things like this for example the post war rebuilding in the 60s when loads of shitty high rise blocks of flats were built.

Exactly.

By doing this they are sitting a precedent and the sea becomes just another area to be filled with buildings.

what precedent. the Dubai people construct whole islands.
the chinese did this centuries ago, so did the japanese. big whup.

Not this easily. If this was the same as that then why are people excited about this idea? This is very different. And they made actual islands out of actual land, not floating islands that are going to need a lot less material. You can only make an actual isand where the water is relatively shallow. A floating island you can put anywhere.

amazing pix
i love this futuristic stuff.

difference = carlton fisk

I googled Carlton Fisk. Apparently he was a baseball player. I don't see the relevance.

well at least one more person knows who my dad is. and yes he liked to sketch out plans for floating cities.

While I agree that there are big risks and problems with this idea, I don't feel that it loses "humaness." I don't feel that land has any direct connecting with the human race except for the fact that this is where we have always lived. We might feel that we lose something in a change like this, but that is only because we are preconditioned to view land as our home. As generations went on, living on these floating cities, humans would feel no specific connection towards land in the same way we do today.

floatingcities are for suckers.

sunken is where it's at.

I kind of hope they happen. It'd be like living in a science fiction novel.

No I meant it would lose humaness by being completely designed unlike the way cities usually develop.

It might start with a few but how long until there's very little sea left to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Yves_Cousteau

Yes, but wouldn't that add to the humanness of society? Wouldn't there be more human effort involved? To me, while I do believe many things (I don't want to say essential things, although they may seem essential to life as we know it know) would be lost, I don't believe humanness would be one of them.

It may seem more human to work with the land we are given and plan around what is already here, but as I mentioned before, we only see that as essential to humanity because it is all we have ever known. We are biased toward land right now; I don't believe it would take long for our viewpoint to change.

okay, so here's the deal. The planet is getting warmer, and it's at an irreversible point now. Whether we caused it with pollution or not is up for debate, but personally I agree with the world-wide scientific community that pollution caused global warming. Unless we do something very drastic and very expensive that can somehow make the planet colder in the polar regions, we are going to have a lot more water and a lot less land in the next 100 years or so.

I am not opposed to ocean life. In fact, I want to live on one of those floating cities right now. or in a sealab 2020(1) kind of thing. As long as these floating cities are indeed self-sufficient energy-wise, and completely powered by renewable energy and does create pollution in my water, then i am happy with them.

However

We need to have colonies in space more than anything. Stephen Hawking said so.

oh really?



No, no I'm not welcome to Rapture. Fuck you, glowing text, fuck you hard.

look sweet, when can I move in?

I really don't believe the weather would be very nice, though.

Those cities look, um, odd, but then again, it'd be fun to live in. Weird, but cool. It really doesn't matter to me.

I think aesthetics would be the last thing I would care when it comes to a post-apocalypse.

I'd rather live in what looks like a giant, floating, moss-covered sink than to inhale water.