Architecture - Familial Magic (Was Dimensional Magic)

Author

Familial Magic (Was Dimensional Magic)

Warm Worm

2006-09-20, 3:25 am

"tomcat"
> Kris Krieger
[color=darkred]

Unless they want to, right?
What's cool about your idea, is that the prospect of urinating in a
water-fountain sounds much more exciting than on a floor, so that fact
should help to discourage too many urine-soaked floors. As for vomit,
however...
[color=darkred]
>
>
> The mile square, and even the 10 mile square buildings I have described
> are not meant to be either prisons or cages. Everyone living in them
> would be free to go outside, visit relatives, friends, and so forth,
> have a vacation home in the country, take vacations, etc.
>
> But the population jam up is coming. It is inexorable. Today, the
> U.S. population is 300 million. In 10 years 350 million. In 20 years
> 425 million. It will increase. We must prepare now.

There is something else I might be more open to, as draconian as it could
become:
(China's become a test-prototype in this regard. Keep your eyes on it if
population and SB's are your thing.)

....By limiting each family to a certain number of children-- say, to 1 or
2-- through gentle persuasion, education and/or incentives.
Purely statistically; if one kid per family, it would appear to half the
population in an average lifetime.
In China, with roughly 1 billion *more* people than America, that could be
sweet.

That way, we still get families, population control, and natural, open space
without an outright (manufactured?) "need" for SB's.

> By starting now no one will ever be 'forced' to move into these
> buildings.

By starting soon, no one will have to.

> It will be a matter of 'choice', of seeing the beauty and
> convience of an apartment or condominium in such a Super Building.
> Those that can't stand the idea will opt out for a home in the country
> instead. But many, many people will choose the Super Building because
> it offers the convience of working and living in the same place.

While I may have alluded to this already, I will admit that the very living
conditions that a SB might create, might somehow function to create less of
a desire in residents to reproduce, thus killing 2 birds with one stone.

If this can be proven, then, ya, I would say let's get those SB's up and
running ASAP! :D

> The alternative probably includes war, police states, and chaos.

Or benelovent dictatorships.

> Sooner or later horizontal spread will remove all the forests and begin
> reducing available farm land. This is when the straw will break the
> camel's back.

The back may break even harder in the long run with SB's. You've even more
or less already admitted that; postponing the inevitable. SB's are more of
the same. We may need less of the same; less people.

> This is when people will revolt if our leaders have not 'already' found a
> suitable solution: Super Buildings.

Persuasive Family Planning.

> Such a cataclysmic future might occur as early as the years 2030 -
> 2040.

With SB's; 2140. And what do they say? The bigger they are, the harder they
fall?

Artist: Family Rankin
Song: Rise Again

When the waves roll on over the waters
And the ocean cries
We look to our sons and daughters
To explain our lives
As if a child could tell us why

That as sure as the sunrise
As sure as the sea
As sure as the wind in the trees
We rise again in the faces
of our children
We rise again in the voices of our song
We rise again in the waves out on the ocean
And then we rise again

When the light goes dark with the forces of creation
Across a stormy sky
We look to reincarnation to explain our lives
As if a child could tell us why

That as sure as the sunrise
As sure as the sea
As sure as the wind in the trees
We rise again in the faces
of our children
We rise again in the voices of our song
We rise again in the waves out on the ocean
And then we rise again

We rise again in the faces
of our children
We rise again in the voices of our song
We rise again in the waves out on the ocean
And then we rise

Pat

2006-09-20, 9:25 am

Warm Worm wrote:
> "tomcat"
>
>
> Unless they want to, right?
> What's cool about your idea, is that the prospect of urinating in a
> water-fountain sounds much more exciting than on a floor, so that fact
> should help to discourage too many urine-soaked floors. As for vomit,
> however...
>
>
>
> There is something else I might be more open to, as draconian as it could
> become:
> (China's become a test-prototype in this regard. Keep your eyes on it if
> population and SB's are your thing.)
>
> ...By limiting each family to a certain number of children-- say, to 1 or
> 2-- through gentle persuasion, education and/or incentives.
> Purely statistically; if one kid per family, it would appear to half the
> population in an average lifetime.
> In China, with roughly 1 billion *more* people than America, that could be
> sweet.
>
> That way, we still get families, population control, and natural, open space
> without an outright (manufactured?) "need" for SB's.
>
>
> By starting soon, no one will have to.

>
>
> While I may have alluded to this already, I will admit that the very living
> conditions that a SB might create, might somehow function to create less of
> a desire in residents to reproduce, thus killing 2 birds with one stone.

> If this can be proven, then, ya, I would say let's get those SB's up and
> running ASAP! :D
>
>
> Or benelovent dictatorships.
>
>
> The back may break even harder in the long run with SB's. You've even more
> or less already admitted that; postponing the inevitable. SB's are more of
> the same. We may need less of the same; less people.
>
>
> Persuasive Family Planning.
>
>
> With SB's; 2140. And what do they say? The bigger they are, the harder they
> fall?
>
> Artist: Family Rankin
> Song: Rise Again
>
> When the waves roll on over the waters
> And the ocean cries
> We look to our sons and daughters
> To explain our lives
> As if a child could tell us why
>
> That as sure as the sunrise
> As sure as the sea
> As sure as the wind in the trees
> We rise again in the faces
> of our children
> We rise again in the voices of our song
> We rise again in the waves out on the ocean
> And then we rise again
>
> When the light goes dark with the forces of creation
> Across a stormy sky
> We look to reincarnation to explain our lives
> As if a child could tell us why
>
> That as sure as the sunrise
> As sure as the sea
> As sure as the wind in the trees
> We rise again in the faces
> of our children
> We rise again in the voices of our song
> We rise again in the waves out on the ocean
> And then we rise again
>
> We rise again in the faces
> of our children
> We rise again in the voices of our song
> We rise again in the waves out on the ocean
> And then we rise

I apologize to Joyce Kilmer in advance, but I guess there is a lot of
sentiment re the superbuildings that can be best summarized quoting a
poem, but changing two words to make it appropriate to the subject at
hand.

I think that I shall never see
A building lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the sweet earth's flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.

Buildings are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

So you can keep you super buildiding and I (and almost everone else)
will keep our trees.

Warm Worm

2006-09-20, 5:25 pm

"Pat"
>
> Warm Worm wrote:
>
> I apologize to Joyce Kilmer in advance, but I guess there is a lot of
> sentiment re the superbuildings that can be best summarized quoting a
> poem, but changing two words to make it appropriate to the subject at
> hand.
>
>
>
> I think that I shall never see
> A building lovely as a tree.
>
> A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
> Against the sweet earth's flowing breast;
>
> A tree that looks at God all day,
> And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
>
> A tree that may in summer wear
> A nest of robins in her hair;
>
> Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
> Who intimately lives with rain.
>
> Buildings are made by fools like me,
> But only God can make a tree.
>

Excellent, and thanks for posting.

Don

2006-09-20, 8:25 pm

"Pat"> wrote
> So you can keep you super buildiding and I (and almost everone else)
> will keep our trees.

I likes me sum treez.
.....even the dead ones.....

Kris Krieger

2006-09-21, 1:25 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in news:eeshf301mi6
@news1.newsguy.com:

> "Pat"> wrote
>
> I likes me sum treez.
> ....even the dead ones.....
>

Dead trees are great homes for woodpeckers, perches for owls and other
raptors, and otherwise more valuable than the average suburbanite gives
them credit for being ;) .

Also, seeing them as "just ugly" is IMO an incomplete aesthetic ;)

LinkBot