Today i saw a drivers education class on tv where the school had four big white 6 by 15 foot screens set up around a car. She was learning how to drive with big screens. This is exactly the phenononom i'm thinking about with regards to making it comfortable to live underground a little. I like windows, without windows i think living spaces feel claustrophobic. That to me is the main drawback to living underground. The other aspects like lighting and air circulation are easily solved for now. Once technology catches up to cheaply providing a way for builders to make the walls come alive with the view of your choice visable from any angle, then we can all contribute to having less of an impact on the Earth. You hopefully can be within 6 inches of the wall and still see the "image" projected on the walls (HDTV). It's possable to get within a few inches of a tv screen, right, even from a very high angle, and still see all of the tv image, which is crucial to making this work bc it would be too annoying if you couldn't see all of the images projected on all the four walls at any givin moment. I hope our homes and offices will have the same thing happen on the walls. Can you imagine live video camera feeds, one in each of four directions, shot from one spot, on a beach in Tahiti, surrounding you in your office or cubicle? Then it wouldn't matter where the wall was, you'd be surrounded by a tropicale beach paradise! Put on some background beach sounds and you feel like your working at your desk on a beach in Tahiti. How cool is that!
Mark j
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
business savings achievable in greener buildings
StarTribune
February 17, 2005
Editorial: Creating jobs in a cleaner world
Not so long ago, there weren't many issues on which the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers -- or environmentalists and labor generally -- were inclined to agree, let alone unite politically. Like their counterparts across the bargaining tables, unions tended to buy the assumption that whatever was good for the environment must be bad for business, and therefore for jobs.
An illustration of changing times will take place at the Minnesota Capitol today when a wide-ranging coalition of activists will make the opposite point to lawmakers: Investments in mass transit, renewable energy, conservation-oriented construction and sustainable technologies are becoming an important engine of economic growth, as well as delivering environmental benefits.
The Blue Green Alliance, sponsor of the event, includes not only Sierrans and steelworkers but the Minnesota Building Trades, Clean Water Action Alliance, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy, United Food and Commercial Workers, the League of Rural Voters and unions representing electricians, communications workers and public employees.
The primary message is that environmental stewardship and restoration create new jobs, and new wealth, in the construction, manufacturing, service and agricultural sectors. Another is that the public-health benefits of cleaning up energy production and other industrial processes, while shared by everyone, are of special importance to the people who earn their livelihoods from them. A third is that the business savings achievable in greener buildings and leaner resource appetites will be shared by customers and taxpayers, too.
These are important points to be made against the backdrop of globalization, as today's employers seek to move all kinds of jobs -- manufacturing and service, blue-collar and white-collar -- overseas. Lower labor costs are the reason, of course, although disparagement of environmental regulation has made a comeback as a supplemental excuse.
But the truth is that tomorrow's industries will be looking for greener techniques as a matter of economic preference. This is the dollars-and-cents message within the abstract notions of "natural capitalism" or the "restoration economy." New models, new methods and new businesses are on the way; the states and localities that nurture them will reap the rewards of foresight in a world where, more than ever, what's better for the environment is also what's best for the economy.
****End
I paid for the newspaper this article came from.
Maybe business and government will see the light
and work together before it's really too late.
Mark j
February 17, 2005
Editorial: Creating jobs in a cleaner world
Not so long ago, there weren't many issues on which the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers -- or environmentalists and labor generally -- were inclined to agree, let alone unite politically. Like their counterparts across the bargaining tables, unions tended to buy the assumption that whatever was good for the environment must be bad for business, and therefore for jobs.
An illustration of changing times will take place at the Minnesota Capitol today when a wide-ranging coalition of activists will make the opposite point to lawmakers: Investments in mass transit, renewable energy, conservation-oriented construction and sustainable technologies are becoming an important engine of economic growth, as well as delivering environmental benefits.
The Blue Green Alliance, sponsor of the event, includes not only Sierrans and steelworkers but the Minnesota Building Trades, Clean Water Action Alliance, United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy, United Food and Commercial Workers, the League of Rural Voters and unions representing electricians, communications workers and public employees.
The primary message is that environmental stewardship and restoration create new jobs, and new wealth, in the construction, manufacturing, service and agricultural sectors. Another is that the public-health benefits of cleaning up energy production and other industrial processes, while shared by everyone, are of special importance to the people who earn their livelihoods from them. A third is that the business savings achievable in greener buildings and leaner resource appetites will be shared by customers and taxpayers, too.
These are important points to be made against the backdrop of globalization, as today's employers seek to move all kinds of jobs -- manufacturing and service, blue-collar and white-collar -- overseas. Lower labor costs are the reason, of course, although disparagement of environmental regulation has made a comeback as a supplemental excuse.
But the truth is that tomorrow's industries will be looking for greener techniques as a matter of economic preference. This is the dollars-and-cents message within the abstract notions of "natural capitalism" or the "restoration economy." New models, new methods and new businesses are on the way; the states and localities that nurture them will reap the rewards of foresight in a world where, more than ever, what's better for the environment is also what's best for the economy.
****End
I paid for the newspaper this article came from.
Maybe business and government will see the light
and work together before it's really too late.
Mark j
WHERE WILL THEY SLEEP AND WORK?
Saw this article online today
Fri, February 25, 2005
World population up 40% by '50
By AP UNITED NATIONS -- The world's population will increase by 40% to 9.1 billion in 2050 but virtually all the growth will be in the developing world, especially in the 50 poorest countries, the UN Population Division said. The division's revision yesterday of earlier estimates said the population in less-developed countries is expected to swell from 5.3 billion today to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of richer developed countries will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------
With lots of deserts where they live, they could build huge housing developments mostly submerged in the ground. Along with a source of water and half buried manufacturing plants, they could make a viable community. Building in the desert also means a more minimal impact on wildlife. I know there is just as much wildlife in most deserts on earth, but there are vast areas of nothingness on every continent too.
Mark j
Fri, February 25, 2005
World population up 40% by '50
By AP UNITED NATIONS -- The world's population will increase by 40% to 9.1 billion in 2050 but virtually all the growth will be in the developing world, especially in the 50 poorest countries, the UN Population Division said. The division's revision yesterday of earlier estimates said the population in less-developed countries is expected to swell from 5.3 billion today to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of richer developed countries will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------
With lots of deserts where they live, they could build huge housing developments mostly submerged in the ground. Along with a source of water and half buried manufacturing plants, they could make a viable community. Building in the desert also means a more minimal impact on wildlife. I know there is just as much wildlife in most deserts on earth, but there are vast areas of nothingness on every continent too.
Mark j
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Star Wars - The Fifth Element - Blade Runner
Well i was gonna point out that I am influenced by these great films. The utopian future of the Hollywood of yesterday has changed into a more wild and complex hap-hazard future of towering buildings floating traffic and pollution. They usually show massive populations living closely together too. Maybe that's because there isn't any room to expand outward anymore, and cities just go higher and higher. I propose they go lower and lower, or into instead. An ideal future world would have manufacturing, offices, schools, , most houses, apartments, and transportation depots go underground for starters. Then fire and police, gas stations, retail shopping, hospitals and restaurants can be on top like they are already, although with a much lower profile. Most roads will be sunken to reduce their visual profile, dampen the noise from the cars and keep crashes from throwing you end over end until you hit a pole or something. Or elevated for highways in rural countrysides, so that farmers and animals would be more free to move about. Not sure how affective this is. I like the idea of floating traffic bc you wouldn't need all these strips of cement and asphalt, millions of miles of them, anymore. I thought that cars could all have a negatively charged field around them. The closer any other car gets to yours the more they repel each other. In heavy traffic it would get easier to stear kindof, you know if everybody kept moving forward at about the same speed the cars would act a little like the blood platlets in your viens with too much Plavix and Aspirin added. If most of the cars were little two seaters like the old Volkswagen Bug, that would be best. Combining the repelling affect of opposing magnets on cars and the ability for them to float would be GREAT! Just put up a 20 foot high chain link fence that also magnetically repels the cars, and things can move along with ZERO friction. If narrowed down to one lane, you could float 15 feet over fields of corn without having to steer much
Mark j
Mark j
Hillsides and Mountains
Today's idea thrown out there is:
The problem with building future cities is they will be prevented from using up any more land. Especially those near rivers and sensitive shorelines. They need to be built in sand desserts, underwater, or in mountains. Or even underground(best).
As you will see, my idea of the future of buildings is based on zero-tolerance of any more land use other than certain types that i haven't yet looked deeply into yet. The one thing i realized was that up to now there wasn't a way to ENJOY living underground, underwater, or in a mountain. But three fundamental things have changed to hopefully now allow any government to be able to combine current(some already economically viable) technologies and zoning laws into a new way of building buildings that does Not impact the environment at all.
Problem number one is the walls. No windows. Feeling kinda claustrophobic? Well with natural light pumped in on glass tubes, electronic wallpaper(that still needs improvement)that shows anything you wnat from cable TV to a Hawaiin beach scene, and plenty of fresh air pumped in to keep our minds healthy. Nobody will care if they are underground.
Problem number two is that space, energy, and security are at a premium now and only going to get worse.
Problem number three is that the poor animals and plants need a break. We've been slaughtering them for a few hundred years now and I don't think they can take much more. Especially if the weathers gonna change. They won't be able to move with it bc they will run into humans.
Having less and less humans on the Earth and building ecologically invisable human habitation will go a long way to saving our way of life for thousands of years to come. At the present rate, something will snap shortly probably(the odds are against us already).
Mark j
The problem with building future cities is they will be prevented from using up any more land. Especially those near rivers and sensitive shorelines. They need to be built in sand desserts, underwater, or in mountains. Or even underground(best).
As you will see, my idea of the future of buildings is based on zero-tolerance of any more land use other than certain types that i haven't yet looked deeply into yet. The one thing i realized was that up to now there wasn't a way to ENJOY living underground, underwater, or in a mountain. But three fundamental things have changed to hopefully now allow any government to be able to combine current(some already economically viable) technologies and zoning laws into a new way of building buildings that does Not impact the environment at all.
Problem number one is the walls. No windows. Feeling kinda claustrophobic? Well with natural light pumped in on glass tubes, electronic wallpaper(that still needs improvement)that shows anything you wnat from cable TV to a Hawaiin beach scene, and plenty of fresh air pumped in to keep our minds healthy. Nobody will care if they are underground.
Problem number two is that space, energy, and security are at a premium now and only going to get worse.
Problem number three is that the poor animals and plants need a break. We've been slaughtering them for a few hundred years now and I don't think they can take much more. Especially if the weathers gonna change. They won't be able to move with it bc they will run into humans.
Having less and less humans on the Earth and building ecologically invisable human habitation will go a long way to saving our way of life for thousands of years to come. At the present rate, something will snap shortly probably(the odds are against us already).
Mark j
Future Buildings
Well this is post / day number one. It's 3:20 am, I'm sitting here after work and came across this blog service and since i knew nothing about blogs and how they worked until 15 minutes ago, I'd give this a try. Besides I usually type a lot of extra words anyway. I'm gonna let this sink in tonight. I'll be back..
Mark j
Mark j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)