EVE Search - Arcology

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Arcology

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Culmen Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2009.01.19 02:22:00 - [31] Originally by: Skye Aldaris That is the beauty in such an undertaking though! The cities would be specially designed to only hold a certain number of people and jobs. Calculations like that only go wrong when people decide to disregard them. Well, lets think about this, suppose you plan an Arcology to support a specific industry.... say silicon chip manufacturing. You plan it out, work out the ideal amount of living space, factory space, recreational space, number of people, etc Manufacturing time... lets give it a highly optimistic 10 years construction time. However 10 years is a long time in the realm of science. say 1 year after you complete your ideal arcology, there a paradigm shift... say we developed bio tech computers, and made the silicon chip manufacturing industry obsolete. Your factories would hence end up being idle,they'd be built into a massive structure. Worse yet, an entire system would have been built up around it operating in a certain way with a certain number of people. Now that the purpose of the factory has been invalidated, the system then collapse. There are only two ways to combat this sort of thing. 1) An Arcology based around a basket of industries This will minimize the affect of any one particular industry failing. But still, elementary chaos theory tells that a even a minor change in an extremely interlocked system(which an Arcology is by definition), could spell doom for the entire system. 2) A Modular Arcology with factories, living spaces, and other support structures capable of being moved in and out of the Arcology at will. However, this if you think about it, is what a modern city already is. We can demolish a factory, re purpose a store, move people in and out. This Arcology would be little more then a normal city with a good public transport system and a cool name
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2009.01.19 02:31:00 - [32] Something like this perhaps?
Culmen Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2009.01.19 02:38:00 - [33] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Something like this perhaps? you sir just invalidated my entire argument There's one industry that never goes out of style That's resource extraction and suppression of indigenous populations
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.01.19 03:44:00 - [34] Or, you know, strip clubs would work as well.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 10:01:00 - [35] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Originally by: Celeste Coeval Originally by: Cmdr Sy The return on monumental architecture SUCKS. Always has, always will. It confers no advantages to any economic activities it houses when compared to conducting it elsewhere, and the capital investment involved is far greater. No-one with the resources to fund such a thing has any reason to do so because they could obtain a better return elsewhere. Miniaturization confers no economic benefits? Turn your PC off please! Im sure your microprocessors would function far better laid out in a long string, or perhaps we should untangle your dna into a flat surface, like our current infrastructure? Heres an economic benefit for you, avoiding extinction. Where did I say "Miniaturization"? I am talking about return on capex, which would be crap for the structures proposed. economists need to learn to subtract Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.01.19 10:15:00 - [36] arcology - i was expecting it to be closely related to flood geology tbh Your cap ship deserves CPR's!
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 10:41:00 - [37] Originally by: Culmen Originally by: Skye Aldaris Arcologies go hand in hand with transhumanism. Though, both Transhumanist movements and Arcologies will be rather unobtainable with the current human mindset and zeitgeist. We'll need to reach a paradigm shift, because for now such extreme changes are hard to swallow for a majority of the planet, despite how good such changes would be for human society, spirituality, and destiny. We would also need to address the consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity. But back to the problem with arcologies. The problem of creating a system completely from scratch. City planning as we know it is more of a guide line then a set of schematics. Planners designate some zones and then let it loose, cities like Brasilia planned only the central districts and let the rest of the city grow organically. An arcology would not be able to do this. It has to be built in carbon nano-tubes, making major modification nigh impossible. Imagine what happens when they figure out they made a miscalculation. Given the timescale these things are meant to survive; it would not be out of the question for even our fundemental theories to change. end result would be a massive white elephant that might not even work. one that could cost trillions of dollars We already have a white elephant that does not work, the modern city:) Fueled by overpopulation. Our current strategies for survival in the environment are flawed, I am not saying arcology is without flaws, I am saying it's a efficiency leap for civilization.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 10:47:00 - [38] Originally by: Culmen Originally by: Skye Aldaris That is the beauty in such an undertaking though! The cities would be specially designed to only hold a certain number of people and jobs. Calculations like that only go wrong when people decide to disregard them. Well, lets think about this, suppose you plan an Arcology to support a specific industry.... say silicon chip manufacturing. You plan it out, work out the ideal amount of living space, factory space, recreational space, number of people, etc Manufacturing time... lets give it a highly optimistic 10 years construction time. However 10 years is a long time in the realm of science. say 1 year after you complete your ideal arcology, there a paradigm shift... say we developed bio tech computers, and made the silicon chip manufacturing industry obsolete. Your factories would hence end up being idle,they'd be built into a massive structure. Worse yet, an entire system would have been built up around it operating in a certain way with a certain number of people. Now that the purpose of the factory has been invalidated, the system then collapse. There are only two ways to combat this sort of thing. 1) An Arcology based around a basket of industries This will minimize the affect of any one particular industry failing. But still, elementary chaos theory tells that a even a minor change in an extremely interlocked system(which an Arcology is by definition), could spell doom for the entire system. 2) A Modular Arcology with factories, living spaces, and other support structures capable of being moved in and out of the Arcology at will. However, this if you think about it, is what a modern city already is. We can demolish a factory, re purpose a store, move people in and out. This Arcology would be little more then a normal city with a good public transport system and a cool name The arcology is a shell, and it's "rooms" are like the cells of a body, they can change to suit whatever evolution occurs within the structure. You are also not considering that culture itself would shift within such a structure. If our basis for not doing anything was paradigm shifts and advancing technology, nothing would ever be accomplished. The most important factor you are not engaging with though is the km3 required to support populations at present and the inefficiency of our waste. Where is the natural world in your arguments against? Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 10:48:00 - [39] Originally by: Sokratesz arcology - i was expecting it to be closely related to flood geology tbh A space based arcology is known as an Ark... Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Culmen Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2009.01.19 11:08:00 - [40] Originally by: Celeste Coeval Originally by: Culmen Well, lets think about this, suppose you plan an Arcology to support a specific industry.... say silicon chip manufacturing. You plan it out, work out the ideal amount of living space, factory space, recreational space, number of people, etc Manufacturing time... lets give it a highly optimistic 10 years construction time. However 10 years is a long time in the realm of science. say 1 year after you complete your ideal arcology, there a paradigm shift... say we developed bio tech computers, and made the silicon chip manufacturing industry obsolete. Your factories would hence end up being idle,they'd be built into a massive structure. Worse yet, an entire system would have been built up around it operating in a certain way with a certain number of people. Now that the purpose of the factory has been invalidated, the system then collapse. There are only two ways to combat this sort of thing. 1) An Arcology based around a basket of industries This will minimize the affect of any one particular industry failing. But still, elementary chaos theory tells that a even a minor change in an extremely interlocked system(which an Arcology is by definition), could spell doom for the entire system. 2) A Modular Arcology with factories, living spaces, and other support structures capable of being moved in and out of the Arcology at will. However, this if you think about it, is what a modern city already is. We can demolish a factory, re purpose a store, move people in and out. This Arcology would be little more then a normal city with a good public transport system and a cool name The arcology is a shell, and it's "rooms" are like the cells of a body, they can change to suit whatever evolution occurs within the structure. You are also not considering that culture itself would shift within such a structure. If our basis for not doing anything was paradigm shifts and advancing technology, nothing would ever be accomplished. The most important factor you are not engaging with though is the km3 required to support populations at present and the inefficiency of our waste. Where is the natural world in your arguments against? My argument against the Arcology is on a pure functional stand point The point is that the Arcology would have to be designed and built without the magical ability to predict the future. Your statement that an Arcology would cause a paradigm shift just confounds this problem. Now not only would Arcology designers have to deal with changing trends, they are now going to have to account for changing mind sets Mechanical Engineering is difficult enough, Social Engineering to the degree that would support and Arcology is going to be nigh impossible to pull off correctly. My arguments against an Arcology were primarily from the stand point of feasibility. But now that you bring up the enviroment, lets discuss that. There is no guarantee that an Arcology would be more environmentally friendly then a standard city. For starters there is the need to extract the natural resources to construct such a megastrucure. We aren't just going to have the stuff materialize out of nothing. it has to be mined/grown, transported to the site. Even with materials fiated, a significant amount of land will have to be clear not only for the structure it self, but to support the construction site. Construction on such a scale will require a hinterland to sort out the material, prefabricate structures, and house the workers who will have to work for years on end. This would be an environmental nightmare. And after all that, the environmental benefit would not be that great. True modern city have massive amounts of waste, but that isn't an argument against modern cities. To get a comparable benifit to Arcology, one only needs to construct a better sewage treatment plant. And all this is assuming everything goes right. You ever hear the phrase, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket?" and further more why do i even need a sig?
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 11:59:00 - [41] Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 12:02:06 I could agree with your point about making existing cities better if people would stop breeding. As for how cities already organically grow, this is true; one could compare it to the advances of a deadly virus through a human body. We grow organically sure, but an arcology is also organic...complex systems require complex solutions. Do we really want the best analogy of the city to be a virus? Don't you find that a business that centralizes it's operations in a large structure has cost and transit benefits over one that operates from many satellite offices? Hence the term low overheads. The cost of building one would indeed be massive. But I am talking from a necessity view point rather than an idealistic one. The gains of that improved transit system and the close proximity of all services to all, would compensate immensely. Also no one said that an arcology must be filled to breaking point. Certain areas of the structure must surely be left "fallow" to allow for adaptation. Arcologies also have a great secondary function, which is as a platform for space. Do you have any alternatives to arcology that could be achievable? One of the reasons arcology catches the eye above all other solutions presented is that it provides a focal point, an objective that is clear and tangible. If your viewpoint was prevalent during many of our historical periods, then the pyramids would have been a definite no no. Please bear in mind I enjoy this debate, I am not trying to "win" anything:P
Culmen Caldari Blood Phage Syndicate R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2009.01.19 13:31:00 - [42] Edited by: Culmen on 19/01/2009 13:31:31 Oh yeah I'm enjoying this debate too. Personally i think Arcologies are kinda cool , but there's no fun if every ones agreeing. and it's dangerous to operate without a devil's advocate soo now thats out of the way....... The issue with an Arcology growing organically is antithesis to the concept. Whats the point of an Arcology if it is built by the same processes of a conventional city it would run into the same problems, with the added issues of the cost of a large shell and everything being in close proximity. Take your example of a "fallow" section, the direct equivalent in a conventional city? An abandoned block. Such fallow sections might not be in use by legitimate citizens, but its a safe bet it would inhabited by the criminal element. You repeatedly brought up the analogy of the Arcology as a human body. I find this actually quite fitting. The human body is actually quite frail. We have minimal redundant systems, every part is dependent on every other. Damage one part, say even something as remote as an artery on a limb, and you risk catastrophic failure of the entire system. That is the advantage of the conventional city, by its distributed nature it, it is imbued with massive amounts of redundancy. A conventional city can survive massive infrastructural failure(San Francisco earthquake), rapid demographics changes(New York) up to an including more or less total destruction(WW2 Tokyo). An Arcology would be vulnerable to structural collapse, and a host of far more minor issues. But far more pressing is developmental difficulties. In a human body a minor developmental defect can result in death or severe impairment, and we are talking about a system with a developmental cycle in the millions of years. An Arcology wouldn't have the benefit of more then a few decades of planning or the sheer amount of trial and error. It would be built, and the resources would have been dumped there. An Arcology would wind up quite like the pyramids. Gigantic, marvelous to behold, a wonder of mankind's ability, But ultimately useless to day to day function once the original purpose passed. After all, what have the pyramids done for us recently?
Rob Z0mbie	Posted - 2009.01.19 14:32:00 - [43] Ahh, i sense much Shinin love in this thread! Joy. Maybe next time i make a thread it won't hijacked by haters, again. crosses fingers
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 17:41:00 - [44] Originally by: Culmen Edited by: Culmen on 19/01/2009 13:31:31 You repeatedly brought up the analogy of the Arcology as a human body. I find this actually quite fitting. The human body is actually quite frail. We have minimal redundant systems, every part is dependent on every other. Damage one part, say even something as remote as an artery on a limb, and you risk catastrophic failure of the entire system. We are currently existing in a macro viral state though as far as the other ecosystems of the earth are concerned. Nature comes up with the most efficient solutions to survival on earth, in a self regulatory manner. Whats wrong with the city is that it's self regulation has leaks caused by technology on a massive scale. One could argue on a scale never before witnessed on the Earth. Arcology is not a solution to crime, war, natural disasters, or disease. What it does do is serve as way to continue civilization without taking up all the earths land. The optimum location for building arcologies is the desert...which are approx 20% of the earths surface. Doesn't it alarm you that the amount of cropland in the world is nearly equal to the total forested area? You are not afraid to make a baby that could break it's limb or rupture an artery so why are you afraid of building a city with the same realistic problems. As for catastrophic failure, we are on track for one to quote lovelock again: ôUnfortunately for us, these wholly different approaches, one the expression of international decency, the other of unfeeling market forces, have the same outcome: the probability of disastrous global change. The error they share is the belief that further development is possible and that the Earth will continue, more or less as now, for at least the first half of this century. Two hundred years ago, when change was slow or non-existent, we might have had time to establish sustainable development, or even have continued for a while with business as usual, but now is much too late; the damage has already been done. To expect sustainable development or a trust in business as usual to be viable policies like expecting a lung cancer victim to be cured by stopping smoking; both measures deny the existence of the EarthÆs disease, the fever brought on by a plague of people. Despite their difference, they come from religious and humanist beliefs which regard the Earth as there to be exploited for the good of humankind. When there were only one billion of us in 1900, these ignorant policies were acceptable because they caused little harm. Now, they travel two different roads that will soon merge into a rocky path to a Stone Age existence on an ailing planet, one where few of us survive among the wreckage of our once biodiverse Earth.ö
David Kang	Posted - 2009.01.19 17:50:00 - [45] Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:57:15 Sorry but i have to jump into this thread its too damn good Ok here are my points for Arcology Firstly i read the posts above mine and both argue about taking up space. Just out of interests why don't you build it underground? and with the material removed reuse it to build mountains and planet a forest on top of the building (its underground remember) Secondly Geothermal energy could provide heat removing the need for Heating. Also if you incorporate a huge hole in the centre of the structure that sun light can enter you still get natural sunlight entering the building that could also be moved around the building via mirrors (thank you Egyptians!). Also building deeper underground you could build a nuclear facility safely so if damage or leaking occurs it will not be a huge threat to life or the environment (it will be in a concrete coffin deep underground) This also reduces the change of damage and also on the point of contamination, that why you use set procedures and a very Exact lay out plan. (ill load mspaint up in a min to show you what i mean. Also building underground reduces cost (no need for those expensive cranes, and because of mining for coal we have plenty of experience making huge hole underground. we know how to earthquake proof them and also protect them from water and collapsing. Think out side of the box people :) btw Celeste Coeva and culmen please keep up the good argument!
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 17:57:00 - [46] Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 17:58:17 Originally by: David Kang Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:54:59 Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:54:23 Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:52:58 Sorry but i have to jump into this thread its too damn good Ok here are my points for Arcology Firstly i read the posts above mine and both argue about taking up space. Just out of interests why don't you build it underground? and with the material removed reuse it to build mountains and planet a forest on top of the building (its underground remember) Secondly Geothermal energy could provide heat removing the need for Heating. Also if you incorporate a huge hole in the centre of the structure that sun light can enter you still get natural sunlight entering the building that could also be moved around the building via mirrors (thank you Egyptians!). Also building deeper underground you could build a nuclear facility safely so if damage or leaking occurs it will not be a huge threat to life or the environment (it will be in a concrete coffin deep underground) This also reduces the change of damage and also on the point of contamination, that why you use set procedures and a very Exact lay out plan. (ill load mspaint up in a min to show you what i mean. Think out side of the box people :) btw Celeste Coeva and culmen please keep up the good argument! I am aware of all these options. Another location is the ocean using vast turbines in the base of the structure to catch the passing currents. Glad to have you aboard the thread:P
David Kang	Posted - 2009.01.19 18:07:00 - [47] Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 18:14:54 Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 18:07:35 Originally by: Celeste Coeval Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 17:58:17 Originally by: David Kang Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:54:59 Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:54:23 Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 17:52:58 Sorry but i have to jump into this thread its too damn good Ok here are my points for Arcology Firstly i read the posts above mine and both argue about taking up space. Just out of interests why don't you build it underground? and with the material removed reuse it to build mountains and planet a forest on top of the building (its underground remember) Secondly Geothermal energy could provide heat removing the need for Heating. Also if you incorporate a huge hole in the centre of the structure that sun light can enter you still get natural sunlight entering the building that could also be moved around the building via mirrors (thank you Egyptians!). Also building deeper underground you could build a nuclear facility safely so if damage or leaking occurs it will not be a huge threat to life or the environment (it will be in a concrete coffin deep underground) This also reduces the change of damage and also on the point of contamination, that why you use set procedures and a very Exact lay out plan. (ill load mspaint up in a min to show you what i mean. Think out side of the box people :) btw Celeste Coeva and culmen please keep up the good argument! I am aware of all these options. Another location is the ocean using vast turbines in the base of the structure to catch the passing currents. Glad to have you aboard the thread:P Glad to be aboard and aye i am pro Arcology If it was upto me each person once they turned 16 would be tested for job qualities, interests and social groups and be put into there own structure of the very same people as themselves. Geeks in one, Goths into another, sheeple in another etc. Then from there you cater the hole centre around the social groups jobs. Science and technology and engineering for geeks, Social studies, music and arts for the goths and related etc. Idea being you live in a Arcology were your job, interests and people are all like you. But then i guess this is moving deeper.
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.19 18:31:00 - [48] Originally by: Celeste Coeval economists need to learn to subtract So do utopians. Building a huge giant thing with massive resource inputs is not going to solve any problems. Plan cities have been epic fail through the ages, doing it on an even more grand scale is unlikely to reap rewards.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.19 19:21:00 - [49] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Originally by: Celeste Coeval economists need to learn to subtract So do utopians. Building a huge giant thing with massive resource inputs is not going to solve any problems. Plan cities have been epic fail through the ages, doing it on an even more grand scale is unlikely to reap rewards. Yes utopians use economics too so they would indeed need to learn to subtract. Thus far this topic is about arcology though, which by no means is utopian, if anything arcology will be more effort than anything previously attempted in known history. You are basing your failed cities argument on urban sprawl designs that failed, this is like saying I hate lemons because they are a citrus like grapefruit. Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2009.01.19 19:28:00 - [50] IMO Arcologies are things that would work really well in hostile environments such as in the Desert, on Water, on other planets or Japan. For your average temperate climate however they're a massive investment which will probably never pay for itself, meaning it'd have to be a government-funded thing... - Infectious -
David Kang	Posted - 2009.01.19 21:49:00 - [51] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Originally by: Celeste Coeval economists need to learn to subtract So do utopians. Building a huge giant thing with massive resource inputs is not going to solve any problems. Plan cities have been epic fail through the ages, doing it on an even more grand scale is unlikely to reap rewards. depends who designs it, man or the machine. Evolutionary algorithm If we want to take this route with the thread i will My money is on the machine making its perfectly efficient or at least 99.9%
Cmdr Sy Appetite 4 Destruction The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.19 21:52:00 - [52] Or we could all live on gigantic floating lilies made of steel, growing hydroponic weed for a living.
David Kang	Posted - 2009.01.19 21:54:00 - [53] Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 21:58:14 Edited by: David Kang on 19/01/2009 21:57:48 Originally by: Cmdr Sy Or we could all live on gigantic floating lilies made of steel, growing hydroponic weed for a living. I take it the idea of living in a steel jungle isn't your idea of living? next you will be telling us you have technophobia, Future a scary place for you? Each to there own
Eran Laude Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.01.19 22:05:00 - [54] Originally by: Cmdr Sy Or we could all live on gigantic floating lilies made of steel, growing hydroponic weed for a living. It's been considered I would prefer to live on one of those actually . . .
David Kang	Posted - 2009.01.19 22:06:00 - [55] Originally by: Eran Laude Originally by: Cmdr Sy Or we could all live on gigantic floating lilies made of steel, growing hydroponic weed for a living. It's been considered I would prefer to live on one of those actually . . . whoa nice
David Kang	Posted - 2009.01.21 16:48:00 - [56] Edited by: David Kang on 21/01/2009 16:51:17 Originally by: Culmen An Arcology would wind up quite like the pyramids. Gigantic, marvelous to behold, a wonder of mankind's ability, But ultimately useless to day to day function once the original purpose passed. After all, what have the pyramids done for us recently? 1, Inspired a generation`s of Archaeologist 2, Through there construction spawned new tools and innovations that we take for granted today in the modern world. 3, provide a revenue from tourist from all over the world. 4, provide us with an in-depth history of our past in the modern world which would of been forgotten. 5, provide inspiration for movie`s and programs (Star gate sg1!!!!!) Not bad aye? so what do they do for us even though there use has passed away If an Arcology project finally pass`s its time it can be recycled OR refurbished for a new purpose. Not all of humanity will fit into one of these as population expands BUT they do increase efficiency and with only a hand full built in country will help reduce some waste.
Elora Danzik Caldari Ward-Tech Industries	Posted - 2009.01.21 18:20:00 - [57] I find this whole argument to be based on a few assumption that may or may not be accurate. 1) World Population continues to expand a current or faster rate. 2) world consumption continues to expand at current or faster rate. 3) Basically things will be as they are now. Arcs are a good idea except. 1) current world population will probably acutually decline in the next 2 generations to more sustainable levels. ( its called the babay boom for a reason) 2) with it world consumption will decline, the younger generation (mine and below) is more concerned with enviroment then having more stuff. 3) With every new generation things change. We are not our parents. We do not view the world they way they do or did. There is a reason Obama can be president now and Jesse Jackson couldn't in the 1980's. So while this is an interesting thought experiment for over population, it does not seem a viable option for an Earth with a smaller population. My opinion anyway.
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2009.01.23 07:55:00 - [58] Originally by: Elora Danzik I find this whole argument to be based on a few assumption that may or may not be accurate. 1) World Population continues to expand a current or faster rate. 2) world consumption continues to expand at current or faster rate. 3) Basically things will be as they are now. Arcs are a good idea except. 1) current world population will probably acutually decline in the next 2 generations to more sustainable levels. ( its called the babay boom for a reason) 2) with it world consumption will decline, the younger generation (mine and below) is more concerned with enviroment then having more stuff. 3) With every new generation things change. We are not our parents. We do not view the world they way they do or did. There is a reason Obama can be president now and Jesse Jackson couldn't in the 1980's. So while this is an interesting thought experiment for over population, it does not seem a viable option for an Earth with a smaller population. My opinion anyway. I hope you are right, but unfortunately people always want more... especially the poor of any society, the greediest tend to come from the poorest backgrounds. Originally by: Lance Fighter This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.
gpfault Haunted House	Posted - 2009.01.23 11:46:00 - [59] Arcology eh? Hey I know those, I had like 500 of them in simcity 2000 until I got bored and unleashed space monsters and riots (best way to level a city ever!) on the populace. Smug bastards.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2009.01.23 12:17:00 - [60] Originally by: gpfault Arcology eh? Hey I know those, I had like 500 of them in simcity 2000 until I got bored and unleashed space monsters and riots (best way to level a city ever!) on the populace. Smug bastards. were you dissapointed too when your Launch Arcos didn't take off as advertised? - Infectious -

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.