Floating City


Dec 2, 2000
58,614
692
483
Easley South Carolina
From a technological standpoint, there's really no reason why this couldn't be done. What I don't care for is this vision the promoters have for experiments in political/governmental systems with the floating cities as some sort of venue. It's almost as if they think that this much has never been done before and it has.

For myself, I don't see how communal systems...which historically have never worked over the long haul on land...can possibly do any better when floating in the ocean. All that aside, they need to focus on the technical aspects first. Make the bloody thing work and worry about who the mayor is going to be later.

[Edit to corrected mispelling]
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
692
483
Easley South Carolina
>>My question is: "Who's gonna pay for it?" <<

Whomever is dumb enough to pony up the cash. Short of that, if the promoters know some of the Right People, I'm sure they could get it added into some stimulus package. With over $1.5 trillion already going down the fiscal rathole which your great grandchildren will be paying for, what's a couple billion more?
 

Ben Lemmon

Member
Oct 9, 2009
525
3
71
It's already been done before, didn't you know? It didn't go over well, either. It sank in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean at about 2:20 in the morning, April 15th, 1912. Of course, I'm talking about the Titanic. In A Night to Remember, Titanic was referred to as a "veritable floating city."

Just thought I'd add that interesting segue. In all seriousness, though, if man were intended to live on water, we'd all have gills and be able to swim efficiently. Besides, we already have "floating cities" with the modern-day cruise liners. They have anything you look for in a city: bars, spas, swimming pools, gyms, diners, etc. They typically have more that most small towns! Referring back to the initial topic about a man-made floating city, can you imagine what kind of hell you would go through loading the lifeboats if the city began to sink? And you thought Titanic was bad.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
692
483
Easley South Carolina
>>man were intended to live on water, we'd all have gills and be able to swim efficiently.<<

And if man were meant to fly, we'ed have wings but we fly anyway. Humans are tool makers and habitat builders. Very good ones at that so I don't see that an inability to live on or even underwater in artificial habitats should be a barrier to same. If we kept with that idea of what were meant to do, we would still be swinging around in trees on the African savannahs.

However, the issue of what to do if one of these places were to get in trouble is a legitimate one. My bet is that the most practical and rugged solution would be to build on platforms anchored to the ocean floor. Not perfect and they could still get wrecked, but it would be a lot tougher to kill.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
692
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Yes, but we don't live in the air.<<

That's because it's not technically feasible to do so, and no real advantage to it. Air travel isa nice fast way to get around but unless somebody invents some sort of anti-gravity technology, I don't see it happening.

However, when you think about it, man has been living at sea for centuries. The "towns and cities" have been self propelled and often involved in trade, warfare, or both, but we've been doing it. This scheme represents something more permanent and in terms of trade, may actually solve some problems. An example would be handling and transferring cargo from ships so big that they can't enter a seaport.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads