DescentBB

... is that they started off as farms, and thus the original site of those farms was chosen because it was the most fertile land around.

And then society inevitably develops around those farms, spreading, urban development begins and then spreads from those central points. Development inevitably spreads so far that it becomes more convenient (and thus profitable) to spread OVER that centralised farmland.

Most cities, simply via their history, are built on the most fertile farmland around, but food is not being grown there. Thus one of our most useful and important resources goes unused, buried under city buildings.

So. What do we do? What should we do?
Should we be trying to build new charter cities on deliberately unfertile ground? Cities in the desert? Cities on mountainsides?
Your 0.02c if you please

Yeah, I think your on to something. The pollution thread got me thinking and I did a great deal of research and youtubing over the last few days. If you combine the rest of the worlds pollution problems, with over-population leading to a lack of resources, it's just gonna get worse. At that point, people will start to gather in even bigger groups exacerbating the pollution problem even more. By 2040, this whole world is gonna be one huge over populated cesspool, with people fighting over scarce resources if something is not done now.

Humm, that’s odd, I was always under the impression that most towns and cities sprang up at ports and along waterways and railroads. Also most major cities here in America are built on bedrock. (maybe it was different in the past)

Also seems to me that most arable land in the states is pretty far from most cities. (major ones anyway) It sure does seem to be the case here in PA.

But, I will agree that urban sprawl is a problem, and something should be done about it.

Hmmm, maybe it's just an Australian thing then.

Flip uncontrolled population growth isn't really an issue taken seriously anymore. Most projections see the global population leveling out at 9-10 billion or so, basically all thx to a gradual (and continuing) increased empowerment of women worldwide.
Take good ol' Hans' hand and let him take you on a magical journey through time and space
[youtube]ezVk1ahRF78[/youtube]


Personally, i'm holding out for multi-tiered underground (and even space based) farms powered by nuclear power.

Space based farms do not need nuclear power

only under certain limiting circumstances is that true

Spidey is exactly correct about virtually all major settlements since around 500 BC. Ports, harbors, bays and river mouths, mostly.
Railroads obviously came later.

Urban sprawl is happening in the Willamette Valley. My own home was built where an old family orchard used to be. A lot of good farmland is being paved over for suburbia in the rest of the valley, especially around Portland. Soon, it'll be all ticky tacky houses and no food production for ourselves, except from China.

The good topsoil is usually scraped off and.....sold to sub-division homeowners whose topsoil was scraped off.

roid wrote:only under certain limiting circumstances is that true

I guess the concept of no clouds in space and unlimited solar energy escaped you.

woodchip wrote:The good topsoil is usually scraped off and.....sold to sub-division homeowners whose topsoil was scraped off.

LOL! Good one! 'Cept the topsoil on my lot sucked from the beginning. Clay and volcanic ash tuff rock, even on the surface. The weeds love it however.

woodchip wrote:

roid wrote:only under certain limiting circumstances is that true

I guess the concept of no clouds in space and unlimited solar energy escaped you.

no there is no escape happening here.
most of space is far from any star

Ummm...what space farmer would want to grow crops far from a free energy source and far from a market to sell hiss goods?

Damn! We need transporters!

woodchip wrote:Ummm...what space farmer would want to grow crops far from a free energy source and far from a market to sell hiss goods?

ah i see, you were assuming the food would be shipped back to Earth.
nah.
i'm talking more Subsistence agriculture. Living on the frontier you'd want to be as self-sufficient as you can. And since this is space, there will always be a frontier. We'll probably slowly spread through the Oort cloud.
Inevitably (like all things) the farming will be increasingly automated/miniaturised until it's just considered a part of a life-support system.
(Which is why i somewhat bawk at the idea of a food market. It'd be nice if these types of things are as ubiquitous and free as air is to us here on Earth, with technology's constant progressive march we'll get there eventually, an inevitability. I guess i'd like to think that the spread of humanity out from Earth will be inexorably tied in with increased automation, hehe the communist's dream eh )

Eventually i'd like it all in the backpack of a spacesuit, nuclear powered, intense levels of light providing an incredibly dense miniature bioengineered biosphere to provide all we need (ie: an emergency support system, incrementally improved to the level that it just never runs out). Assuming we'll still be reliant on biological production of food/respiration of course (we could likely use that energy more directly, chemically manufacture all we need, without having to kowtoe to biology).

I want to sit on the beach with a cold brew and look at the stars. You can keep the suit

i just mention the suit coz it's fun to think of the most simplest unit with the most personal freedom (maybe i played too much minecraft). Almost certainly we'll be living in larger habitats, spacecraft, spacestations, and colonies on asteroids & comets.

It makes me feel a bit claustrophobic being reliant on larger communities for my basic survival, and in space moreso. So the thought of an individual spacesuit with indefinite life-support is appealing, i guess it recreates the feeling of being able to just "walk away" from any situation like we can here on Earth, to make one feel less like a slave to one's surroundings.

There are some big hurdles before that could be realized. I still havn't heard what happens to biological life when it travels outside the magnetosphere directly into the solar wind. Wonder why no one has done that experiment yet?

flip the moon is outside of the magnetosphere

Roid, your space suit idea still leaves you dependent on others. Basic suit maintenance for one. Boredom will be another factor. Humans need other humans to interact with. If you truly want to be alone and self sufficient, go to a equatorial country, have a helicopter drop you in the middle of a jungle and live there. If beforehand you have learned how to survive there and got all your inoculations, the jungle will supply all your immediate needs. You don't need a spacesuit to be alone as there are plenty of places here on earth to do so.

It's outside of the magnetosphere sometimes , Everytime someone has been there, has been when it is shrouded in the magnetosphere.

Oh flip, you do realize that the earth's magnetic poles have switched many times in the past. When those events happen, it's very a very sporadic, random and slow process that exposes all life on earth to deadly cosmic rays for long periods. We are approaching one of those "events" again, although know one knows exactly when it will occur. Time to go underground or die.

Yeah, I'm not sure I buy into that one TC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis

Geomagnetic reversals have happened quite a few times in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/when ... flips.html

What's a little unclear is what actually happens during the shift. Theories abound, but scientists believe that as the shift begins, the magnetosphere's strength wanes and the poles begin to shift around in position, or even vanish altogether. That would be weird. Birds might freak out a little trying to find north as it shifts around.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/RevScience.html

As to the cosmic radiation, you're guess is as good as mine. Some say it might be deadly, others say it would only impact us about 10%. But I don't think I want to be around when all this "event" begins.

flip wrote:I want to sit on the beach with a cold brew and look at the stars. You can keep the suit

and I wish to note that on this one, flip and I agree completely.

The cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis suggests that there have been geologically rapid shifts in the relative positions of the modern-day geographic locations of the poles and the axis of rotation of the Earth, creating calamities such as floods and tectonic events.[1]

There is evidence of precession and changes in axial tilt, but this change is on much longer time-scales and does not involve relative motion of the spin axis with respect to the planet.[citation needed] However, in what is known as true polar wander, the solid Earth can rotate with respect to a fixed spin axis. Research shows that during the last 200 million years a total true polar wander of some 30° has occurred, but that no super-rapid shifts in the Earth's pole were found during this period.[2] A characteristic rate of true polar wander is 1° per million years or less.[3] Between approximately 790 and 810 million years ago, when the supercontinent Rodinia existed, two geologically-rapid phases of true polar wander may have occurred. In each of these, the magnetic poles of the Earth shifted by ~55°.[4]

Even 55 degrees is not a true reversal and that's buying into ALL the assumptions. It's a cool hypothesis and would be fun to check it out, but it is nowhere near fact.

flip wrote:It's outside of the magnetosphere sometimes , Everytime someone has been there, has been when it is shrouded in the magnetosphere.

In this picture the Earth is more than half full, ie: from the Sun's POV the moon is partially infront of the Earth here. Or more specifically, the Earth here is not shrouding the moon in it's extended magnetosphere tail.

Thanks, roid. I figured the "every time humans have been to the moon, it was in the magnetosphere" claim was far-fetched, but didn't have the chance to look it up.

woodchip wrote: I guess the concept of no clouds in space and unlimited solar energy escaped you.

Even if it were to be shipped back to Earth and the spacefarm is in orbit, there's still that half of the time when it's in the shadow of the Earth and recieving even less sunlight than it would on Earth on a cloudy day.

Uhm, that picture proves nothing. You do realize the magnetosphere is invisible? and that even it's shape is theoretical? It would take more than a picture and assumptions. I would bet good money on it.

EDIT:http://www.astronomy.com/en/sitecore/co ... field.aspx

http://wps.prenhall.com/chaisson_BG4/10 ... index.html

Can you think of any reason we would put Astronauts on the moon while it is directly in the solar wind? It would be stupid

Researchers working for NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission have discovered that the Earth’s magnetic tail could be harmful to future astronauts. The moon stays inside Earth’s ‘magnetotail’ for six days every month — during full moon. This can have consequences ranging from lunar ‘dust storms’ to strong electrostatic discharges, according to one researcher quoted by NASA in ‘The Moon and the Magnetotail.’ So far, this is pure speculation: no man has been on the moon when the magnetotail hits. As added the same scientist, ‘Apollo astronauts never landed on a full moon and they never experienced the magnetotail.’

I would guess that they were on the moon when it entered the magnetosphere and off before the full brunt of the magnetotail during a full moon. It's just a guess, but it makes sense. I wouldn't send someone to the moon KNOWING that they would be under the full force of the solar wind, why would you do that? I guess to put it to rest, I'll find the dates of the lunar landings and then what phase the moon was in. That should help. The moon is under the full force of the magnetotail for 6 days, but it travels in the magnetosphere for longer than that.

flip wrote:You do realize the magnetosphere is invisible? and that even it's shape is theoretical?

Flip, what are you talking about? The magnetosphere protects the Earth and trails away from the Sun... so there's no way the moon in that picture is protected by it.

It's been a well-established phenomenon for decades, so if you want to contradict it, you'd better have something stronger than "it's [sic] shape is theoretical".

flip wrote:Can you think of any reason we would put Astronauts on the moon while it is directly in the solar wind?

Yes. Because normal solar wind exposure in a spacesuit is not dangerous.

flip wrote:I would guess that they were on the moon when it entered the magnetosphere and off before the full brunt of the magnetotail during a full moon.

This would still imply every moon visit was always during the time the moon was in the magnetosphere.
...Which, again, is disproven simply by the pic roid posted.

No Foil, The moon enters the magnetosphere at a crescent moon, the tail is directly across from where the sun hits the Earth. The moon enters the magnetopshere long before it enters the magnetotail.

EDIT: So far, the lunar landing dates and moon phases are correct

EDIT: Even Roids picture supports that as it is 90 degrees (more or less) from the point the Sun shines on the Earth. Giving the Earth a half moon

Roids picture shows the moon in the magnetosphere

flip wrote:EDIT: Even Roids picture supports that as it is 90 degrees (more or less) from the point the Sun shines on the Earth. Giving the Earth a half moon

Yes. Which proves roid's point.

(P.S. It's also clearly significantly more than 90 degrees.)

flip wrote:Roids picture shows the moon in the magnetosphere

No. It doesn't.

Unless you're going to throw out the illustrations you just posted, and claim the magnetosphere comes out "90 degrees (more or less)" from the sunlight vector? [If that's the case, then I'm referring you to your nearest geometry teacher.]

------

Why are you pushing so hard on this, flip?

I'm not pushing so hard, it's just we disagree as to where the magnetosphere is. The moon clearly enters the magnetosphere waxing crescent and leaves at a waning crescent. This also coincides with the lunar landing dates, and mainly because it just makes good sense to mitigate risks as much as possible , why add the solar wind in as a factor if you didn't have to. Oh , yeah I know why I'm pushing so hard, it's because I'm rigth and instead of the discussion continuing they always become contentious over semantics. I said we have never had a lunar landing when the moon was not in the magnetosphere, I stand by that. Your trying to tell me that geometry can determine the size and shape of the magnetosphere? I think you and roid are confusing magetosphere with magnetotail. The magnetotail being something else that was not willing to be risked at the time.

flip wrote:...it's just we disagree as to where the magnetosphere is. The moon clearly enters the magnetosphere waxing crescent and leaves at a waning crescent.

Where are you getting this?!

...Oh, wait... you're basing this on the lunar orbit shown in that illustration you posted?

LOL, that's not even close to accurate! The lunar orbit is ~60RE, and the magnetosphere doesn't come out remotely far enough (look it up).

flip wrote:I said we have never had a lunar landing when the moon was not in the magnetosphere, I stand by that.

I suggest you check out the lunar solar wind experiments. You're claiming they did experiments to measure solar wind properties... while being protected from the solar wind?

flip wrote:I think you and roid are confusing magetosphere with magnetotail. The magnetotail being something else that was not willing to be risked at the time.

No. We never referred to the tail, you did.

I think we were speaking about lunar landings and whether they were done in the magnetosphere or not. Were they or wern't they?

From what I can tell, they left instruments to measure the solar wind they didn't just sit there and hold their arms out .
Nothing you have said so far proves or disproves whether "manned" lunar landings were done at the times the moon is in the magnetosphere or not.

Because the Solar Wind Spectrometer made continuous measurements, it was possible to measure how the Earth's magnetic field affects arriving solar wind particles. For about two-thirds of each orbit, the Moon is outside of the Earth's magnetic field. At these times, a typical proton density was 10 to 20 per cubic centimeter,with most protons having velocities between 400 and 650 kilometers per second. For about five days of each month, the Moon is inside the Earth's geomagnetic tail, and typically no solar wind particles were detectable. For the remainder of each lunar orbit, the Moon is in a transitional region known as the magnetosheath, where the Earth's magnetic field affects the solar wind but does not completely exclude it. In this region, the particle flux is reduced, with typical proton velocities of 250 to 450 kilometers per second. During the lunar night, the spectrometer was shielded from the solar wind by the Moon and no solar wind particles were measured.

Magnetosheath?

You know what, let's just make this easy and say that the Solar Wind is bad for biological lifeforms and unless your content to live in a damn suit your whole life like Roid, some other kind of solution has to be made.

You know what I've noticed about "we" around here? You can't hardly even go to great pains to agree without some kind of resistence. You never get a "hmm, yeah I wonder if they did that or not", it's always got to be outright opposition for "you" guys. It's not like I'm arguin a 6 literal day creation or death to all homosexuals, I've conceded every single bit of evidence that science claims, then out of nowhere, I get questions Though I can hardly get a fix on you Foil, I think though, your just one of the crowd.

IMG from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetopause

- There's the bowshock, behind which is the magnetosheath. The closest (ie: leading) edge of the bowshock is only 90,000 km from Earth (the moon orbit is 350,000 - 400,000 km).
- There's the magneto-sphere, which stretches away from the sun allowing the moon to pass through it for 1/3rd of the month. The edge of which is referred to as the magnetopause.
- There's the magnetic tail, which the moon is within for only 5 days each month (ie: at the very center of that 1/3rd of the month). When in the tail there's ZERO solar wind, but possibly some dangerous static discharges (i don't know, & maybe no-one yet knows).

I concede that the evidence now presented suggests the possibility of the Moon being still within the magnetosheath (behind the BOWSHOCK) while the "Earthrise" photo was taken (i also want to point out that this is a suggestion that no-one has yet made, so it's not proving anyone right). But it still could not have been within the magnetosphere, nor the magnetotail.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/ ... ndex.shtml
Flip this is the source for one of your previous quotes.
A part which you didn't quote, just below what you quoted, says that the Solar Wind Composition (ie: different to the solar wind Spectrometer experiments) Experiments deployed by various Apollo missions were completed DURING THE ASTRONAUTS' STAY. The experiments collected solar wind for a number of minutes or hours, afterwhich they were RETURNED TO EARTH with the astronauts so that the collected solar wind could be analysed back on Earth.

flip wrote:It's outside of the magnetosphere sometimes , Everytime someone has been there, has been when it is shrouded in the magnetosphere.

Urghsdfasdf. It's statements like this that is what annoys me about you, it's a good example of what's wrong in this whole situation. What you've done here is made a statement on a hunch without checking it, which is fine, but you unabashedly claim it as the truth and put no disclaimer in there that it's actually just a thought or hunch that you pulled completely outof your ass and HAD NOT CHECKED AT ALL - which only comes out later in the thread when you mention you are (then) checking it. When you are giving opinions like this, you need to say something like "i wonder if..." or "maybe it's like this, i can't say either way thought until i check it".
If you don't do this, if you continue making unverified lazy statements instead, you'll likely find that ppl will increasingly ignore you. You gotta be more rigorous dude.