4 ms·

Actually, I agree with you on those points. What I don't see is how your proposed solution solves the problem. The sources of pollution are usually inside the

Actually, I agree with you on those points. What I don't see is how your proposed solution solves the problem. The sources of pollution are usually inside the cities. Los Angeles doesn't have a smog problem because of all the ozone blowing in from the Pacific ocean - it's because of all the cars in Los Angeles. Putting up an encasement around the city would actually make the air cleaner everywhere else on Earth, but would slowly suffocate the citizens. Given a choice, I'd want to be on the side of the encasement that does NOT have all of the cars and factories. Are you planning on moving the factories outside the encasement?

vorg 11y ago
I'm thinking of dense Asian-style cities run on subways and enclosed walkways, not Los Angeles, and the encasings built gradually, where every air-conditioned/central-heated apartment/shopping building is part of the enclosed area. The current factories wouldn't even be included in the area that gets enclosed in the first place. It seems more likely that various cities and countries around the world will act in self-interest by gradually enclosing more and more of their own living spaces inside air-filtered zones (including areas currently outdoors) than that governments around the world will mutually agree on and execute solutions to growing air pollution.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Sorry, this makes no sense. It would be far, far cheaper to decrease pollution than to build airtight seals around every living space. Just think about how impractical and expensive that would be. Space stations and submarines are airtight, and they are extremely expensive. Now imagine making every building to similar standards, and connections between them to the same standards. Then think about how space stations and submarines must be maintained in order to remain in working condition, and how expensive that is. It would be absurdly impractical. In fact, reality bears this out. Pollution in the U.S. is down over the past several decades, compared to its previously increasing. Pollution controls work and are economically viable. Yes, developing (and far more corrupt) nations like China are increasingly choking themselves with air pollution. That's because of their social problems (i.e. not putting enough value on human life and quality of life). Their governments are willing to let their citizens suffer, and their citizens are powerless to effect change within their social and governmental structures. Eventually the costs will become too great and even the corrupt governments will have to do something. (Or the rich/powerful will live in expensive, isolated structures while everyone else suffers.) But one thing that certainly won't happen is to encase everything in airtight seals. Not unless Free Energy happens, in which case pollution would no longer be an issue anyway.
  - vorg 11y ago
    > It would be far, far cheaper to decrease pollution than to build airtight seals around every living space But it could be cheaper for the inhabitants of a few living spaces to build airtight seals around their own living spaces only than to contribute to the cost of decreasing air pollution worldwide, something you suggest might happen when you say... > Or the rich/powerful will live in expensive, isolated structures while everyone else suffers A city's residents and a country's citizens tend to act in short-term self-interest, and taking part in worldwide pollution control is a long-term solution that gives up a lot to developing countries like China and India who expect the developed world to bear the greatest costs because they've already reaped the greatest benefits from polluting and causing climate change.

vorg 11y ago

I'm thinking of dense Asian-style cities run on subways and enclosed walkways, not Los Angeles, and the encasings built gradually, where every air-conditioned/central-heated apartment/shopping building is part of the enclosed area. The current factories wouldn't even be included in the area that gets enclosed in the first place. It seems more likely that various cities and countries around the world will act in self-interest by gradually enclosing more and more of their own living spaces inside air-filtered zones (including areas currently outdoors) than that governments around the world will mutually agree on and execute solutions to growing air pollution.

alphapapa 11y ago
Sorry, this makes no sense. It would be far, far cheaper to decrease pollution than to build airtight seals around every living space. Just think about how impractical and expensive that would be. Space stations and submarines are airtight, and they are extremely expensive. Now imagine making every building to similar standards, and connections between them to the same standards. Then think about how space stations and submarines must be maintained in order to remain in working condition, and how expensive that is. It would be absurdly impractical. In fact, reality bears this out. Pollution in the U.S. is down over the past several decades, compared to its previously increasing. Pollution controls work and are economically viable. Yes, developing (and far more corrupt) nations like China are increasingly choking themselves with air pollution. That's because of their social problems (i.e. not putting enough value on human life and quality of life). Their governments are willing to let their citizens suffer, and their citizens are powerless to effect change within their social and governmental structures. Eventually the costs will become too great and even the corrupt governments will have to do something. (Or the rich/powerful will live in expensive, isolated structures while everyone else suffers.) But one thing that certainly won't happen is to encase everything in airtight seals. Not unless Free Energy happens, in which case pollution would no longer be an issue anyway.
- vorg 11y ago
  > It would be far, far cheaper to decrease pollution than to build airtight seals around every living space But it could be cheaper for the inhabitants of a few living spaces to build airtight seals around their own living spaces only than to contribute to the cost of decreasing air pollution worldwide, something you suggest might happen when you say... > Or the rich/powerful will live in expensive, isolated structures while everyone else suffers A city's residents and a country's citizens tend to act in short-term self-interest, and taking part in worldwide pollution control is a long-term solution that gives up a lot to developing countries like China and India who expect the developed world to bear the greatest costs because they've already reaped the greatest benefits from polluting and causing climate change.