Sun, 08 Sep 1996 17:15:30 -0500

Chris Hind writes:

<Arcologies!! Imagine having a 50 story view looking down on a
rainforest? Cool.>

The economics of the architecture requires that most people wouldn't get
any kind of view at all, living and working in the interior. Secondly, if
people were allowed "ouside" for recreation, that rainforest would get
trampled for some distance. (What population density are we talking
about in this archology?) I get the feeling we're only two-dimensional
hive creatures, taking it to all three, a full hive, is likely to result in a great
deal of psychological dysfunction. There's too much monkey left in us.
BTW, if that window view of nature is so important to your determination
of "cool", doesn't it seem likely that a connection to nature is somehow
necessary to the human psyche, perhaps more than an archology can
offer. How about this line? "Arcologies!! Imagine having a view looking
at all that plumbing and airvents? Cool." Not quite the same romantic
effect is it?

I go for the solution of more space or less people.

Now mile high buildings within a traditional city are another matter. That's
cool! (But who will put up with a five minute elevator ride several times a


Okay, I know Max Moore is going to pummel me on this one, but are we
all sticking to the party line that FTL travel is really impossible? Even

It's a question that severely effects the economics of all growth.

Here's an informal poll? What do you all consider the comfortable
carrying capacity of the planet? Not the maximum.

My feeling is that if we're talking about a population of universal material
affluence and an individualist culture--I say about two billion. (I like

Your opinion, anyone?