[ExI] Are Cities Dead? (was Re: moving bits, not butts)
eugen at leitl.org
Wed Mar 2 11:06:58 UTC 2011
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 07:25:58PM -0800, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> Cities are also good for enabling you to live a mile away from your
> neighbor. If the population was evenly spread over the Earth's land
In terms of infrastructure minimax you want to create spherical assemblies,
but static, power dissipation and need to power (each US-American
has a 11 kW metabolism, equal to a blue whale basal metabolic
rate) by solar flux alone would probably result in flatter assemblies.
> surface in a square grid, there'd be a person every 140 meters. If
> you allow for families and specify clumps of 4, you'd have a family
> every 280 meters. A 3 minute walk to other people, no matter where on
> Earth you were, save the oceans. You get space because the rest of us
> clump up.
> There's evidence that a lot of creative economic activity scales up
> super-linearly in cities, e.g. 2x the people will generate more than 2x
That's due to interactions and collaborations, which can be substituted
by telepresence in principle.
> the productivity, 15% more economic activity per capita, while using
> less than 2x the energy (only 85% more). By contrast corporations are
I think you can grow most of your calories with 2 h daily
light garden work on ~0.05 ha/person, under optimal circumstances.
Assuming you can make single-cell algae photobioreactors work
that area might shrink a bit.
> sublinear (profit per employees shrinks with size)
> Arguably a safer place to raise children than outer suburbs
USia isn't especially representative.
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
More information about the extropy-chat