[extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense
J. Andrew Rogers
andrew at ceruleansystems.com
Thu Aug 19 05:36:14 UTC 2004
On Aug 18, 2004, at 10:07 PM, Spike wrote:
> Most would agree that there is a growing threat to
> western civilization of an attack by some sort of
> weapons of mass destruction: bio, gas or nuke. We
> are developing antimissile tech, but seems to me
> another parallel defense would be to encourage
> urban sprawl. An enormous smeared out suburbs
> would be far less vulnerable to attack than an
> enormous highly concentrated city, would it not?
> The argument is made that urban sprawl is bad for
> wildlife, but the alternative may encourage an
> attack which would be bad for both humans and
> wildlife. Perhaps cities have outlived their
The economic optimum would probably be something closer to clusters of
dense "micro-cities" connected by very efficient transport networks.
You could sweep huge amounts of suburbia into a very small footprint if
you built vertically such that the density was more like Chicago.
Separate each of these so that there is 3-5 miles between any two
micro-cities, with farms, open space, and whatever else is needed in
between. My back-of-the-envelope seems to indicate that this would
work pretty well, at least in theory. I don't know that people would
like living in high-rises though, and it would require some adjustment
of economic assumptions. Much more environmentally friendly though.
j. andrew rogers
More information about the extropy-chat