3 ms·

Well, the two extremes would be an even distribution of small homes over the entire agricultural footprint space for the human population, vs. all the humans li

Well, the two extremes would be an even distribution of small homes over the entire agricultural footprint space for the human population, vs. all the humans living in a giant skyscraper surrounded by the agricultural (and energy, and water) production zone. Each setup has certain advantages and disadvantages (transport from field -> skyscraper has a cost, vs. local availability of basic resources, but on the other hand, if you have to run fiber optic to every household, that gets expensive). In terms of delivery, it depends on lot on the mass of what's being delivered. If we want to go larger, then imagine multiple installations like this, perhaps specializing in different production capabilities, and trading among one another. Sort of a Factorio gameplay scenario. Basically, would skyscrapers (or underground versions) be the best way to colonize Mars (you'd still need the large agricultural zones)? See also Mad Max: Fury Road for the dystopian version (BulletFarm, GasTown, and Hydroponics/Milk IIRC). Back on Earth, the issue would be that if you doubled the population density of a city by building a lot of skyscrapers without also doubling the regional agricultural zone size, you'd end up dependent on import of foodstuffs from remote regions, which could become a problem.

feoren 4y ago
I don't think we exist somewhere on the line directly between your two extremes; I think there are more dimensions than that. It's true that for most of human history, the local availability of basic resources meant not having to transport lots of goods around. But that's just not modern society: even in resource-rich rural areas, the vast majority of goods on store shelves are from far, far away. If you want local stores to stock oranges all year, and smartphones, and plastic toys, resources are going to be moving thousands of miles no matter where humans live. Density ultimately just means fewer destinations for those goods, which can allow for optimization. High-density living is just more optimal in almost every way.
- freshpots 4y ago
  See my comment above. The basics, water, power, and sewage are a challenge in modern society when it comes to growth.

feoren 4y ago

I don't think we exist somewhere on the line directly between your two extremes; I think there are more dimensions than that. It's true that for most of human history, the local availability of basic resources meant not having to transport lots of goods around. But that's just not modern society: even in resource-rich rural areas, the vast majority of goods on store shelves are from far, far away. If you want local stores to stock oranges all year, and smartphones, and plastic toys, resources are going to be moving thousands of miles no matter where humans live. Density ultimately just means fewer destinations for those goods, which can allow for optimization. High-density living is just more optimal in almost every way.

freshpots 4y ago
See my comment above. The basics, water, power, and sewage are a challenge in modern society when it comes to growth.