| Eagle Rising Nonprofit Vision, Survival, and Adaptability |
| Home |
Now it is your turn to share your thoughts on the cities of the future.
Please send your comment or ideas to admin@eaglerising.org. Please
include your name, initials, or cover by which you would like to go by. In
addition, try to keep it under 500 words.
I will update this page either once a month or when I have collected over
10 comments.
Please send your comment or ideas to admin@eaglerising.org. Please
include your name, initials, or cover by which you would like to go by. In
addition, try to keep it under 500 words.
I will update this page either once a month or when I have collected over
10 comments.
I think the idea is compelling, high density populations have a choice of building
up or down. And if they want the surface free, then it would have to be down.
-Bill-
While I love caving, I really don't know if I would want to live in a
world that you would never see daylight again.
-R-
Maybe the safest way for people to survive a nuclear war, if we had
foreknowledge, is to spread the population out evenly. Then we would have to
move large amounts of supplies underground before hand. Heavy density
populations or small countries like Israel or Taiwan might defiantly benefit from
underground cities.
-Sarah-
Underground cities would do no good, unless there was a fair share of supplies
and manufacturing capability built into them
-JJ-
IMO underground cities would be the last resort. Everything would be
controlled and whoever had control of the power plant would control the
people. Everything would depend on power from the solar type lights to light the
streets and grow the food to the running water and the air filtration. It
would be a lot easier to monitor all in and outbound traffic as there'd only be a
few ways out so you'd basically be under a microscope living inside. The article
talks about using such cities for quarantine against disease but if someone in the
community got sick it seems to me that it would spread simply through the air
filtration systems. Might be an interesting experiment for individuals or families
to band together in an old mine or something but to put 5.000 or so people
underground in one place just seems like a better run community prison.
-T-
If we had underground cities for only an emergency, we would have to develop
them so they were only temporary. And we would have to have the supplies and
equipment to re-inhabit the surface in the aftermath
-Ik-
My personnel interest is space colonization. I think that underground cities
would be a perfect way to train colonists. It may happen so, that space colonists
and people interested in surviving in the future are connected. I think
Nanotechnology is more likely to make earth uninhabitable then Nuclear
weapons
-Kevin-
Provocative thought. I would not be surprised if the government elite already
had small underground cities
-Kilo-
up or down. And if they want the surface free, then it would have to be down.
-Bill-
While I love caving, I really don't know if I would want to live in a
world that you would never see daylight again.
-R-
Maybe the safest way for people to survive a nuclear war, if we had
foreknowledge, is to spread the population out evenly. Then we would have to
move large amounts of supplies underground before hand. Heavy density
populations or small countries like Israel or Taiwan might defiantly benefit from
underground cities.
-Sarah-
Underground cities would do no good, unless there was a fair share of supplies
and manufacturing capability built into them
-JJ-
IMO underground cities would be the last resort. Everything would be
controlled and whoever had control of the power plant would control the
people. Everything would depend on power from the solar type lights to light the
streets and grow the food to the running water and the air filtration. It
would be a lot easier to monitor all in and outbound traffic as there'd only be a
few ways out so you'd basically be under a microscope living inside. The article
talks about using such cities for quarantine against disease but if someone in the
community got sick it seems to me that it would spread simply through the air
filtration systems. Might be an interesting experiment for individuals or families
to band together in an old mine or something but to put 5.000 or so people
underground in one place just seems like a better run community prison.
-T-
If we had underground cities for only an emergency, we would have to develop
them so they were only temporary. And we would have to have the supplies and
equipment to re-inhabit the surface in the aftermath
-Ik-
My personnel interest is space colonization. I think that underground cities
would be a perfect way to train colonists. It may happen so, that space colonists
and people interested in surviving in the future are connected. I think
Nanotechnology is more likely to make earth uninhabitable then Nuclear
weapons
-Kevin-
Provocative thought. I would not be surprised if the government elite already
had small underground cities
-Kilo-
