Showing posts with label City of the Future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City of the Future. Show all posts

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Ben Wheatley Meets J.G. Ballard






Thanks to the blog Existential Ennui, I just found out that Ben Wheatley, the guy behind A Field in England, one of my favorite films of last year, is attached to direct an adaptation of a book I've been wanting to read for nearly thirty years.  J.G. Ballard's High Rise.  When I was a young lad, I found a book about various ways the concept of the City of the Future has been explored in art and literature.  And one of the books mentioned was High Rise.  But, gasp, I could not find a copy to save my life.  Heck, I could barely even find any other evidence the book ever existed.



However, it was finally reprinted (first US printing?) in 2012, and I now own a copy.  Which went right into my 'to read' pile and has been sitting there for two years.  OK, so I just moved it closer to the top.  I've got a lot of books to read.  Don't pressure me, man.


I can't wait to see what Wheatley does with this very cool concept.  And somehow his voice mixing with Ballard's feels right.  Of course, right now, he's only 'attached' to the project.  It's not a sure thing that this film will get made, or that by the time it is, Wheatley will be at the helm.  Still, I find it exciting news to wake up to, and hope all goes well.  And I have time to read the book so I'm not a total poser-chump.

Mushrooms!!!

Oh, yeah, and fangirl favorite Tom Hiddleston is currently attached as the star.  That's cool by me.  If you can't get Michael Fassbender, there's Hiddleston.



-Matthew J. Constantine

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Matt’s Soapbox: The City of the Future Part 2

          
                                                    Walking Around the City of the Future

    A few months ago, I postulated some elements of a City of the Future in a rather longwinded post.  I talked some about the need for better foot and bike access, energy distribution and conservation, and food production.  These are all challenges that I think are worth facing for all of us, for a great many  reasons.  More and more people across the globe will be living in cities in the coming years and decades.  If we’re all going to be living in relatively small areas, we darn well better do it right.  But what is right for one city will not be right for another.  This idea of a Smart City is not a one size fits all kind of thing.  Geography and culture are deeply important factors to consider in the design and construction.  A city in or around a desert might be full of open architecture, designed to capitalize on air flow for both power and cooling.  It would likely capitalize on wind and solar power, and would be greatly concerned with heat reduction as well as water retention and reclamation.  A city deep in the interior of say Canada or Russia, might would more likely be concerned with heat and food production.  Geothermal and wind might be the best focuses.  Or biofuels created by algae in vats.  And of course, a city on a coast line would be far more likely to seek power from the forces of the tide, and be concerned with flooding and water desalination.  And that’s not even getting into any exotic city concepts like oceanic floaters or extraterrestrial colonies.


    The creation of future cities will be about a lot more than just energy and food.  It will be about quality of life.  And I hope, it will be about a much wider idea of quality of life than many might consider on the surface.  For the sake of ease and familiarity, I am going to focus on an East Coast United States city for much of my musing (though, this being me, there will likely be many asides).  So, what do I want to see in my city?  You know I want pedestrian and bike access.  I want some of Bill Nye’s weather-tight bike paths.  A web of these passages stretching across the greater DC Metro area would be a great start (even without the great idea of the showers and laundry service).  And things like universal wi-fi are kind of a given.  Well run public transportation that gets you to the places you need/want to go whenever you need to be there would be a huge help (the public transit in this region is a giant, tangled mess that doesn’t seem to ever be going to where I need to go, when I need to be there).  And I want those green spaces.  Right now, the Metro area is pretty good with green, though there’s always room for improvement.  One thing we need to adopt is the covered roadway some European countries have started using.  Not only do they help reduce local heat pollution, create greenhouse gas capturing green zones, reduce noise pollution, and look nice, but they also give wildlife more natural bridges to go where they need to go as well as rich potential for parks and community gathering places.  Along with an increase in green spaces, increased levels of urban and rooftop gardening, and the reduction of pollutants, I would hope to see an increase in bees, among other things, perhaps driving a more healthy side-business of local honey production along with other locally grown produce (and maybe even more free range chickens and such).  And yeah, I want to see those tower farms in whatever way can be made to work.  Perhaps the actual Vertical Farm is a pipe-dream (I don’t think so) but some variation of that idea can, must, and will work.  An essential truth of the future is that we’re going to have to grow a lot of food for a lot of people, and traditional farming will not get the job done.  Getting beyond all the drawbacks of traditional farming, from pollution creation to poor land use, it can not grow enough food for the population we will have.


    But one of the things I’ve been thinking about lately that I’d like to see in my City of the Future is something that will likely turn a few heads (and maybe some stomachs).  I want my clone burgers.  Along with hydroponic/aeroponic produce, rooftop vegetables and honey, and all that sort of thing, I want my ‘meat-vat’ grown beef (or whatever).  See, I’m a meat lover.  And I’m an animal lover.  And I don’t see those two as mutually exclusive.  I don’t think hunting or meat-eating is immoral (though calling hunting a sport is misguided to say the least).  But I do think needless cruelty toward animals speaks poorly of us as a civilization and a species.  The idea that animals don’t feel pain would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.  And keeping chickens, pigs, cows, and the like penned up in their own filth for their entire life is obviously not the best thing for the animal, nor in the long run is it the best thing for us.  I would not advocate the elimination of meat from the human diet, but I would like to see a return to ‘free range’ livestock.  That sounds great (like organic farming SOUNDS great), but it’s completely impractical on the scale that’s needed to feed current or projected populations.  Enter stem cell grown beef.  No, it’s not ready for primetime yet.  But it’s coming, and soon.  Cultured beef is beef.  But it was never a cow.  It never lived, suffered, and died.  It doesn’t need to eat, walk around, fart, procreate, or any of the other things a cow does.  It consumes far less resources and creates far less pollution.  And, assuming proper conditions, it’s not going to carry any diseases or other various things that get into our meat supply today.  So, what I want to see, as I bike through a park (perhaps right above a highway), is a vendor selling clone beef burgers.  Even more, I want to see him competing with the guy next door selling cultured tiger meat, or dolphin, or whatever (what about mammoth?!).  Because once we can create that meat artificially, we don’t have to harm the creatures it comes from anymore, and wouldn’t that be nice for everyone.  Again, I’m not saying we should make the growing and slaughter of animals illegal, but less necessary.  This would also allow those with money to pay more to get naturally grown meat, allowing the farmer to hold less population of animals, allowing the animals a more roomy and healthy environment.  Naturally grown meat would become a specialty item largely affordable for middle class and wealthy folks, kind of like how ‘locally grown’ and ‘organic’ stuff is today.  Personally, I don’t think I’d ever feel the need to buy ‘natural’ again (assuming they can get the texture and taste right, which seems pretty likely).  And, as the population continues to move to cities, and those cities become more and more self-sustaining, decreasing the reliance on mega-farms, there will be more and more land to let nature take its course, more land to raise animals, to let herds grow larger, stronger, and healthier.  Wouldn’t it be something to see the rebirth of the old time cowboy as we take our first steps into the stars?  And this same beef-based idea should work just as well with fish and other creatures of the sea, creating a specialty industry while reducing the dangers of over-fishing.


    I recently visited a farmer’s market, which was a fun excursion and a glimpse into the potential of urban farming.  If more and more people live in cities, there is more and more need of food.  Traditional farming requires vast stretches of land that by its nature must be far away from cities, requiring costly and polluting processes and several steps of middlemen to get that food from the ground to the table.  Urban farms could reduce a great deal of the waste and pollution of that system.  Be it the towering vertical farm at the end of the block, or the rooftop gardens of my neighbor, or the bee hives of that guy down the street, I should be able to head over to one of the open green spaces (perhaps covering the nearby Route 60 or the Capital Beltway) and shop for the various things I might need.  Sure, I won’t be able to find everything there.  I’ll still need to go to the grocery store to pick up some imported foods and various other things.  But, I’ll be able to keep a bunch of my money in the local economy, while helping to reduce the waste and pollution created by our current, outmoded supply chain.  And heck, if the vertical farms work as well as they might, I could even get some of my exotic fruits and vegetables from just down the street.


    What I keep finding as I look more and more into the future of cities, into technology, and into better living is that there is no magic bullet.  There is no single fix.  But, that’s kind of the best part.  There are a million little things that can make life better, a million little things you can do yourself, in your own way to fix the world a little bit at a time.  Folks my age or less have been bombarded for most of their life with the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle mantra.  And look, that sounds great.  But it’s not perfect.  Reduce?  Absolutely.  How much packing material do you need?  How much plastic?  Why get a bag if you don’t need one?  Reuse?  Sure.  I re-use plastic bowls I get from the Chinese take-out place all the time.  I have a whole apartment filled with discarded furniture.  I try to reuse what I can.  And I’ve gotten away from bottled water, ‘cause that’s just a giant environmental middle finger.  But then there’s recycle.  You know, recycling some things is a great idea.  Things like metal and glass.  But a lot of stuff we recycle, we do to make ourselves feel better…but we’re actually causing more trouble, wasting more energy and creating more pollution than if we just threw the stuff out and made more.  Though, with new technologies coming along every day, maybe there will be a time when those soda bottles and foam peanuts can be ground up, fed into a furnace, then pumped into feeding vats for some new strain of algae.  I don’t know.  So, reduce and reuse, for sure.  And if you cover the first two, and do the third when it makes rational sense, that’s a big help.  But there’s more you can do.  Grow plants.  Grow them on your window ledge if that’s all you’ve got.  Grow them on your roof if you can.  Foster green zones.  Use the power of the vote to get parks in your area.  I saw an article online I can’t track down now, about a group of people trying to turn the no-parking zone in front of New York City fire-hydrants into mini parks.  These small patches of green would, in their small way, help clean the air, better absorb water run-off, reduce heat, and beautify the neighborhoods.  And by their nature, they would be better at keeping people from parking in front of the hydrants.  Any damage sustained by emergency vehicles would simply grow back.  How many little projects like that could be done in any city?  And a city of the future would be built with such things in mind.  We’re learning to work with nature, not against it, so that both might thrive.


    It has been said that soon, 80% of us will be living in cities.  This is a dramatic change in population distribution, and will no doubt come with its own boons and problems.  One thing I’ve found fascinating is the idea that there will a rebirth of city states.  I don’t mean politically…or, not especially politically.  I mean in terms of resources.  New cities will generate their own power, grow their own food, and probably make their own goods.  At least when it comes to the basics.  I see the population centralizing, while the supply chains decentralize.  Why build gigantic, polluting, wasteful farms in rural, central states, when you can build small, efficient, clean running farm towers every few blocks?  Why build a giant dam in one state, to power a small town in another state?  Why have thousand mile tubes to pump natural gas from one part of the world to another, doing who knows what to the land, when you can generate power from the Sun, the wind, and more in the very buildings you occupy?  Cities can and should become self-sufficient, or very close to it.  If that happens, the land between cities will likely turn back to its natural state, or at least more natural state.  No need for giant farms, no need for massive dams, no need for fracking or drilling for oil.  There’s simply no need.  So, will these independent cities, with no pressing need to import the essentials of life shut themselves off?  I should certainly hope not.  My city of the future would be connected.  Not just through telecommunication, which I sure hope keeps improving.  But through air and rail.  High speed rail could link major city hubs.  Airports featuring luxury airliners running on more energy efficient fuels might hop into low orbit on short trips around the globe.  And at least one space elevator will let me reach orbit and who knows what beyond.  And all of this has potential of happening within my lifetime.  While not every piece of technology is perfect yet, and not all the kinks have been worked out, mostly all that is lacking is the will.  I hope I’m not alone in wanting to build the city of the future, where we can buy ethically cultured, cloned beef burgers with aeroponically grown lettuce and pickles and locally baked bun, walk through a park that rests atop a bustling highway, listen to the buzzing of the bees and the singing of the birds, as the photocells of my jacket charge my phone and you feed your trash into an algae based reclamation unit.  A city where I can walk to work, hop a bike to see a friend, and maybe the rail to visit my family for an afternoon, all while surrounded by growing plants and clean air.



-Matt



Thursday, April 11, 2013

Book Review: Scatter, Adapt, and Rembember



    As I was writing my Soap Box rant a couple weeks ago, I happened to get an advanced reader copy of Annalee Newitz’s new book…which was pretty much a well researched and more expansive version of the rant I was working on.  Didn’t stop me from writing it, of course.  In this book (coming in May), Newitz looks at how humanity might go about surviving inevitable problems.  Her basic premise is that there will be some kind of extinction event.  It will happen.  And there are things that we can do, places we can go that will allow humanity (in some way) to come out the other side.  For a book about the end of the world as we know it, it’s actually a very uplifting and positive work.


    To begin with, according to Newitz, something is going to happen.  Will it be wild climate change (hot-cold-hot), megavolcanoes, meteor strikes, radiation clouds, plagues, artificial intelligence?  Maybe a little of each.  The question isn’t if humanity will face massive and devastating, game changing events in our future, it’s how we will deal with them.  She looks first to the past, the Earth’s many previous extinction events.  From an invasive life form that created an environmental disaster so profound the planet’s atmosphere has never been the same and almost all life alive at the time did not survive, through the Great Dying where complex food webs collapsed, to the death of the dinosaurs, to a few points in Human history where we almost didn’t make it, she lets us see that extinction events are not new, they’re not pretty, but they’re not inescapable.  Humans are in a unique position in the entire history of the Earth.  We have the abilities the book's title names.  We have a long history of scattering, finding new places to live.  We are great adapters, living in places where nobody else can, shaping the world around us to fit our needs in ways nothing else can, and even shaping ourselves.  And we have the ability to communicate, through speech, art, the written word (a heartening shout-out for science fiction in this book, too), etc. so that as cultures and a species, we can remember what has happened, even figure out how things went down before we ever existed.  We have vast storehouses of knowledge and wisdom that will aid us during whatever problems we’ll face.  Blue-green algae didn’t have that.  The dinosaurs didn’t have that.  We’ve got it.


    Within the first few pages, I was happy to see that Newitz does not fall into the all too common group of self-hating environmentally conscious people, the ‘Earth would be better without us’ people.  Good sweet crap, that’s an attitude I don’t have any patience for.  She doesn’t stew in guilt about what our ancestors did or didn’t do, nor for what goes on to this day.  Getting past all that tomfoolery, she states things as they are, to the best of her knowledge (which is well researched, with testimony from a great deal of them-thar smart peoples).  The weather is shifting.  Is it because of human activity or a natural process?  In many ways the point is moot.  It’s happening, and that’s what we have to deal with.  Obviously, if Humanity is causing it, we should know and change our behavior accordingly, but the climate is shifting and it’s shifting faster than we can fix simply by stopping the most damaging of behaviors we practice.  And it’s happening even if our pollution has nothing to do with it.  The point isn’t to assign blame, point fingers, wring hands, rend clothing, and cry out ‘the End is nigh.’  The point is to figure out what is happening and how we can a) counteract it or b) live through it.  And when she talks about living through it, she isn’t just talking about us.  She’s talking about taking as much of the ecosystem through the crucible as possible, and out the other side.


    Obvious topics like alternative sources of energy get some mention.  At this point, I think all but the most obtuse and backward facing folk understand that whatever happens and wherever things go, oil, coal, and natural gas are not permanent fixes for our energy needs.  Even if you can somehow manage to block your eyes to all the environmental damage they do, there is a finite amount.  They will run out.  I don’t even advocate the complete abandonment of them.  But when you rely on only a couple sources of energy, you make yourself vulnerable.  Wind, geothermal, solar, hydro, etc.  Spread it out, make it work where it makes sense.  That all leads into something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately, which is building smarter, to live better and use less energy.  This is where things get nuts.  Self-healing cities that generate much of their own food and power?  Oh yeah.  And Newitz makes a very valid point, that not every city of the future would work the same way.  Solutions in one region might not work somewhere else.  Societal considerations might dictate major differences.  In my recent article, I was focused primarily on the US, but even so, New England and California may share a good deal, culturally, but are also quite different.  Maybe a city grown and cultivated like a forest might work in one place, while a primarily underground city of hydroponic farms and subways might work somewhere else.


    From there she looks outward, away from the Earth.  I have heard so many people say things like ‘we need to solve our problems here on Earth,’ or ‘this money could be spent better,’ or what have you.  Gah.  We haven’t ‘solved our problems’ in a hundred thousand years, but we haven’t let that stop us from creating great music or art, from discovering the building blocks of the universe, or from crossing the oceans.  And where is that money going to be better spent?  On a bomb that could blow up the world a 31st time?  Another bail out for corporate fat-cats?  Another study on why prisoners feel a desire to escape?  Or should we spend money on creating new industries, discovering the universe, and getting a few of our eggs out of the one basket they’ve been in since the dawn of time?  I vote for the latter.  Developing a means to get people into space for a relatively low cost is the next step.  From there, the sky is no longer the limit.  I don’t plan to die.  But if that plan doesn’t work out, I can die with some satisfaction if humans are living on another world.  Newitz’s book contains some tantalizing hints at some of the things being explored and developed right now.


    So yeah, raging death is lurking in the shadows of tomorrow.  But, in spite of that, the future is indeed so bright I feel the need to wear sunglasses.  Annalee Newitz provides a kind of inoculation against the relentless negativity constantly dished out by past-loving futurephobes.  It’s not about Left or Right; Liberal or Conservative.  It’s about learning from the past, adapting to the ever changing present, and having the collective cultural balls to strike out into that next horizon.  A very readable book, and a must read for those looking to keep this Human Train a’rolling.



Scatter, Adapt, And Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction
Author: Annalee Newitz
Publisher: Doubleday
ISBN: 978-0-385-53591-5

-Matt

Note: I don’t know if it’ll make any difference, but what I read was an advanced reader’s copy, which might see some alterations before official publication.  Likely any mistakes or misinterpretations are 100% Grade-A Matt, though.


Thursday, April 4, 2013

Matt’s Soapbox- The City of the Future


    When Brad and I started this blog, I had always intended to feature more science items in my posts.  Brad is dorky about comics (so am I, but not as much), action figures, music (which he should discuss more), Westerns, and fan art.  While I’m more dorky about science fiction, history, scientific and technologic advancement.  I’ve posted a few book reviews (which admittedly have strayed into soapbox preaching), but I haven’t done much in the way posting about science.  This is an attempt to amend that in a small, if long winded, way.


    Cities may not be the ultimate expression of humanity, but they’ve got to be in the top 5.  Civilization may have had its origins in hunting groups, jewelry making, domestication of animals, and the first attempts to cultivate crops, but it didn’t get moving until the first cities were built.  Why?  I’m sure there are a million reasons, but I think the most obvious is the old proverb that ‘two heads are better than one.’  One amazing, creative genius living in seclusion is likely to make little difference in the grand scheme of things.  A hundred, a thousand, ten thousand living in close proximity, sharing ideas in a feedback loop of creativity can, have, and will change the very course of Human history, the Earth, and the stars.  The city is like a canvas upon which history is painted.


    To give a bit of background, I was born in a small city (perhaps a large town) called Bangor in the New England state Maine.  I grew up in the late 70s through the 80s, where the hope and excitement of the 50s and 60s was on its last, staggering legs.  My neighborhood had a few distinct features that set the tone of my childhood.  Most of the people were older; the broken, grown-over bones of long-gone industry were literally a few feet from the edge of my back yard, a drug infested slum was just around the corner (in both directions), and there was a shabby, rundown playground from a generation before that had become the haunt of homeless, junkies, and the closest thing Bangor could manage to gangs.  Maine had been (and with the exception of a few hope building then dashing bumps, has continued to be) on a downward spiral of entropic decline since the early part of the (20th) century.  Each year, something died its last death, something closed, some industry moved on or was made irrelevant.  Once upon a time, it had been a bustling state with several strong industries and somewhat diverse population.  Bricks, lumber, ice, potatoes, granite, paper.  Maine had it.  But who builds with brick?  Why would you buy lumber that costs so much more than the stuff from Canada?  And who even uses that much lumber anymore?  Who needs ice in an age of electricity?  Who uses paper in a world of computers?  It all went away, and though there were always a few scattered voices of reason, begging people to adapt and change with the times, those voices were candles in a hurricane, lost in the vast onslaught of status quo loving, ‘not in my back yard’ singing voices.  All that was left were the tourists, who we hated for their alienness and rude intrusion while we swindled them like Tombstone whores for every cent we could pinch (seriously though, Canadian tourists were assholes; you’ve got to give me that).  Bangor was not the idyllic postcard image of a New England town.  It’s former glory was long tarnished, old mansions turned into slum apartments, roads broken, parks in disrepair, sidewalks grown over, train yards silent, bridges rusted.  It was strip malls, and parking lots, and empty storefronts.  Kids with nothing to do spent their time causing trouble, using drugs, and having babies.  But I would hear all the time, ‘it’s so much worse out there; big cities are full of danger; we know how to live.’  And for a long time, I believed it.  My few visits to Boston did nothing to change my feelings.  Boston is everything I dreaded about The Big City.  It’s crowded, stifling, and dirty.  So dirty.  “If this is the city, if the city is what I see in movies, if it’s the stories I hear from old people, then I don’t want any part of it.”  It’s no wonder I was so into science fiction as a kid.  When you come from a poor family, from a town full of broken dreams, and everything beyond is shrouded in paranoid fear, you want to look to a hope filled future.  In my late 20s, I realized something had to change.  I was hearing all these stories from friends who had left and gone to greener pastures.  My job (or jobs; at one point I had four but still couldn’t pull in enough money to eat) was going nowhere and showing no signs of ever going anywhere (actually, other than a theater and Toys R Us, everywhere I ever worked is now closed).  Not being into drinking and drugging, my social life was limited to a handful of gamer friends.  And when it came to women, I was getting tired of trailer-trash gals who were looking to get knocked-up so they could get another welfare check, who spent their free time listening to country music and complaining about how Mexicans were stealing their jobs (there are like three Mexicans in the entire state of Maine and no jobs, so I’m not sure what kind of job thievery was going on), while asking me questions like ‘wha’tchu readin’ for?’  (And yes, that is a bit of an exaggeration.  That description fits only 90% of the women I met.  Working in a book store and a game store, I did meet women who could read on occasion.).


    I came to the Washington DC region because I had the opportunity.  It wasn’t my plan.  I was thinking, “I’ve got to get out of here and I’ve got to get out of here, now!” not “I need to go to DC?”  One of my brothers had moved to the area years earlier and was able to help me get a foothold.  Otherwise, I was thinking about Arizona, a Pacific island (seriously), or some other small, out of the way, reclusive place.  I didn’t want to move to a city.  I’d seen cities on the big screen, on television, in stories.  I’d been to Boston.  Heck, hadn’t DC been ‘murder capital’ of the US a few years back?  But when I got here, something else changed in me.  No longer did I simply need to get out of Maine, but I fairly quickly saw that there were aspects of living in a city I’d never imagined.  Being me, one of the first things I noticed was the women.  Everywhere around me was a rainbow of beautiful women.  For whatever reason, from whatever part of the world, they were all here, in a 20 or 30 mile radius.  I also realized I didn’t see fat people.  Not many, anyway.  An old boss once told me that when he got lost at an airport, he was able to find the Maine terminal because he saw a line of fat people.  Poor people tend to be fat.  Between depression over their life sucking and their access to cheap crappy food, they tend to be fat.  Add to that a pedestrian/cyclist hostile public works department (try riding a bike across Bangor sometime; it sucks), crappy weather patterns, and limited access to…well everything, Maine has a LOT of fat people.  And I’m not talking jolly or overweight in a comic way.  I’m talking sweaty, drooping, need a scooter to move around, makes you physically ill to look at, ‘I clean myself with a rag on a stick’ kind of way.  A Jerry Springer special kind of way.  Losing 30 pounds in the first month I was living in the DC area (because I was actually able to bike to and from work every day, and had miles and miles of easily accessed bike paths for pleasure) drove home how different things were.  Back in Maine, my friend Rob and I would load our bikes in the back of his truck and drive 30 or 40 minutes to a college campus to find biking environments half as inviting as what I found strewn about everywhere I looked here (frustratingly, where I live right now is on the edge of an old, unplanned city and isn’t very bike friendly…still better than Bangor, but not great, however it’s getting better, not worse).  And then there were the people I met.  Everyone was from somewhere else; everyone had come to this area for a chance at something better.  And everyone was so nice.  After just a bit over a month, I had two invites to Thanksgiving from people I’d hardly met, but they knew I was new to the area.  I had people willing to help me move.  I had people offering me whatever they had to give.  I still do.  When I was having roommate trouble, a friend’s parents, who I hardly knew offered me a place in their home.  And I still get invites to dinner/lunch on every holiday, from multiple people.  This isn’t because of my winning personality, but because these people are constantly willing to go out of their way for others.  And I had new friends.  I figured it would be a long time before I made new friends, but I had friends in the first month.  I had a roommate who would go on to be my co-Dork on this blog within six weeks of setting foot in the greater DC area.  This was the beginning of a tectonic shift in my way of viewing cities, the people in them, their place in our world, and their place in our future.  It was more than just being able to see obscure movies on the big screen, or having musical acts I actually gave a rat’s ass about play gigs within a half hour’s drive, or being near a kickass comic convention.  It was more than walking down the street and seeing the most beautiful Korean woman I’d ever seen, followed by the most amazingly gorgeous Latina, followed by a knock-out Scandinavian, followed by a smoking hot African.  All that helped.  But there was more to it.


    Counter to popular opinion, I would say that cities are the best place to live, and that in the future, this will become more and more true.  They’re not only the best place for us as individuals, providing access to amazing technologies, culture, and experience.  But they’re good for the environment and they’re good for the advancement of Humanity.  Now, this isn’t universally true right now.  And what I propose is to learn from the very real and very ugly mistakes of the past, but not be blinded by them.  L.A. and Boston are examples of cities that don’t accomplish what I’m talking about.  I’ve never been to L.A. so my understanding of it is limited and based on secondhand information.  But, with everything spread out and that network of long winding roads, it is exactly not the kind of city I envision.  This is simply a loose, half-formed proposal for some elements of a city of the future.  The DC area, which I think has a lot of things right, still has major problems, not the least of which is absolutely awful traffic flow, and frustratingly ineffective public transit (it’s getting better, but it has a LONG way to go).  As with all technological advancements, there is the risk of abuse.  But if we didn’t open ourselves up to risk, we’d still be in the trees; or worse, the ocean.


    First, why build and live in a city?  I covered a bit of this above.  Having more, diverse people in a small area creates opportunity for connections and cultural experiences that are considerably more rare outside of cities.  Within five minutes’ walk of my apartment I have two grocery stores, Thai, Chinese, Peruvian, Ethiopian, Japanese, and Italian restaurants (plus three burger joints, a pizza joint, two sub shops, a wine shop, a liquor store, a pharmacy, a movie theater, a hobby store, a music store, a high-end gym, and dozens of other shops and services.  I don’t have to drive to any of them, which means I don’t spend gas on any of them.  I also have a bus stop at the end of the road I live on, which connects with a Metro line.  I can get from here to the heart of DC in maybe 45 minutes without ever getting in a car.  Now, the public transit in the greater DC area leaves a LOT to be desired, but I’m looking toward the city of the future, not the city of today (and it doesn’t shut down at 6PM, like the busses in Bangor, which is still better than all the towns that don’t have a bus at all).  The area I live in isn’t actually very well set up.  It’s not all that pedestrian or cyclist friendly.  But Reston, where I lived with co-Dork Brad for a year and a half, had arteries for foot and bike traffic everywhere.  I could get almost anywhere I’d ever need or want to go within 30 minutes on the back of my bike.  And I’d be safe the whole time.  No riding in the roads with side-mirrors whizzing past me inches away at 45 miles an hour.  Yet, I don’t live in the city itself.  When I’m in the city, the availability of everything is even more profound.  I’ve walked across large sections of Washington D.C., passing hundreds and hundreds of interesting shops, bars, hotels, and museums, seeing thousands of people, and enjoying pleasant sunny days, without ever having to get in a car.  This is one of the things a city can do.  With a proper public transit system and safe walking areas, there is little need for personal motor vehicles.  In fact, they become something of a hassle.  If the Metro ran 24 hours, like in New York, I don’t think I’d ever drive into DC.  In my city of the future, a 24 hour a day subway/bus system would keep all segments of the city connected in a timely and convenient way.  Much, if not all of the city would be off limits to personal vehicles.  Busses, bikes, perhaps some form of cab, and official vehicles.  That’s it.  Perhaps parking complexes would exist near the city’s edge for travel outside its limits.  Or, if there were something like a highway cutting under (yes, under) the city, parking areas might be built along it.  But within the city, you walk, you bike, or you take public transit.  This is good for you, for the city, and its good for the environment.  You’ll be healthier, pay less to get around, and there will be a substantially smaller draw on natural resources, while also limiting pollutants created by vehicles.  The city of the future will be built with pedestrians and cyclists in mind.  This could change a great deal, giving rise to more elevated walking areas (like the Inner Harbor in Baltimore), covered passages, designated bike paths, etc.  It would also mean building closer, less spread out cities.  Again, Los Angeles and its urban sprawl is exactly what I want to get away from.  Or, again, Bangor, where it takes an hour to walk from where I lived to where I worked, there is only one sidewalk between the city proper and the Mall area (where most of the jobs are), the buses stop at 6PM (most businesses close at 9), and most shops are nowhere near where anyone lives.  If you want to go grocery shopping, pick up a new jacket, and maybe go to the bank, you might be driving around town for two or more hours, because everything is so spread out.  If you combined close construction, pedestrian focused layout, and excellent public transportation with high speed rail to connect cities, you could eliminate a great deal of the need for personal transport.  I know that some people love their cars, and love driving.  And there will certainly still be a need for roads outside of the cities.  But a lot of us could, and should be able to live without ever needing a personal vehicle (and if/when we did need one, we could rent).  If I’m in Gotham, and I need to get to Metropolis, walking, bussing, or taking a metro to my local train station, hopping a high speed train, and arriving in Metropolis in half the time it would take me to drive, while using substantially less energy to get there, would be ideal.


    What about food?  The much lamented American Farm is dead.  It’s dead.  The sooner everyone accepts that and moves on, the better we’ll all be.  That way of life is over.  It’s never coming back.  Nor should it.  It’s over because it didn’t work.  It worked well enough for a while, but was always doomed.  Just as the brick and lumber industries in Maine were destined to die, so was traditional farming.  It’s not efficient enough, it costs too much, it’s too unpredictable and it’s a massive source of pollution and environmental destruction.  You have some people saying, ‘let’s go back to traditional, organic farming.’  No.  Let’s not.  Let’s go forward to more sustaining, less damaging forms of farming like hydroponics and aeroponics., and yes, perhaps genetic engineered crops.  And, instead of vast tracks of land in distant parts of the country, lets grow the food where the people who are going to consume it live.  As proposed in Dickson Despommier’s book The Vertical Farm, we need to build our food growing needs into the very infrastructure of the city of the future.  No need for massive, fuel consuming refrigerator trucks to carry heavily treated plants from the Midwest to the East Coast, inevitably losing a large percentage to spoilage and damage.  Grow that food in a building at the end of the block, sell it, eat it, and send the waste back to be burned for energy without ever leaving the neighborhood.  Fresh grown food all year round.  No need for pesticides.  No need for preservatives.   No need for large scale transportation.  No need to destroy massive ecosystems for a couple years of growing before the land is leached of its nutrients.  In controlled settings, we could be eating healthier, more consistent foods without need of a lot of the bad stuff we do to it.  Sure, not everything would work.  Cows, for example.  But a lot would.  And with so much transportation and shipping cut out, the costs on many foods could be substantially less, while stuff like beef might become a more expensive, specialty food.  Reduced demand for massive farmland would allow environments to repair themselves, increasing much needed biodiversity and helping restore some of the smaller sources of food that require a level of wilderness, like honey.  It might also make so called ‘free range’ food more economically and environmentally feasible in some areas, again as a specialty food.  Decentralized food production could be safer, healthier, better for the environment, more reliable, and potentially more economically sound.  And with advances being made in the technologies, it might even taste better.  People’s fetishistic attachment to ‘the land’ simply isn’t feasible in a world populated by billions.  There are too many of us to feed using traditional farming, especially using ‘organic’ methods.  So, unless you and 4 or 5 billion of your friends want to volunteer to die right now, so that everyone else can eat, you need to shut the hell up about, and let the adults talk.


    Where do we get our juice?  Cities could go a heck of a long way toward making themselves energy independent.  Major advancements in solar (and this with a long time hostile treatment of research by a political system largely bought and paid for by oil interests), have opened the way for solar collectors with the potential to approach and possibly exceed fossil fuels energy levels, according to Michael Belfiore’s book about DARPA, The Department of Mad Scientists.  Numerous other technologies have made similar strides.  Wind is much more efficient and safe than it ever was, there are less ecologically damaging options for hydro.  Biofuels and even waste incineration have their place.  The city of the future will not be held hostage by reliance on only one means of power.  It’s not solar or bust, wind or bust, natural gas or bust.  Diversify and decentralize.  This makes good economic sense, it’s less susceptible to terrorist attacks or natural disasters, and it’s less damaging to the world as a whole.  If buildings generate their own electricity, even if just for lights, or just for air circulation, it would reduce the demand on the overall power grid by massive amounts.  And that’s within the reach of current, on the market solar and wind technology.  The stuff coming along in the next few years should be able to do much, much more.


    What will the city of the future look like?  More and more, scientists are looking to nature for inspiration in technological advancements.  Be it the feet of geckoes or the structure of the leaf, they’re finding that evolution has forged some pretty impressive and useful designs through eons of trial and error.  My suggestion would be to embrace this.  Find design that echoes and blends with nature.  Bring plants and life into the city, and create places that don’t segregate us from the natural world.  When I first moved to the DC area, I was amazed while riding my bike.  There were multiple times where I felt like I was riding in the country, nowhere near my fellow human beings.  The smell of the trees, the singing of the birds, the quiet.  How strange it was when I glimpsed a four lane road not ten feet to my left through a break in the trees.  How odd it was when I looked across a field and saw a bustling neighborhood, or turned a wooded corner, into a busy town center.  Something as simple as trees, and ‘green corridors’ can do that here.  Imagine what could be done if it were planned out, built into the very design of the city.  Not occasional patches of green, but a surrounding synthesis of nature and architecture.  Clean air, soft breezes, colorful flowers, and the smell of soil, and a million of your fellow humans just on the other side of that tree.  Since moving here, I’ve felt more like I live in the country than I ever did back in Maine, yet there are more people in just Fairfax County than in that entire state.  I see deer, birds of every type, and trees everywhere.  On hot summer days, I can feel the cooling breeze of wooded glades wash over the W&OD Trail.  And again, this in a place where most of these benefits were retro-fitted.  I propose making them part of the design from the beginning.  Buildings should be designed to harness wind and sun, walkways and paths should lace the city above ground.  Assuming cleaner running (not to mention far fewer) vehicles, roads could be built below ground level, along with train/subway lines.  Without assuming automated vehicles, lights could be powered by wind or solar without too much difficulty.  Above ground might feature covered walks, preferably with solar collectors, as well as open air.  There wouldn’t necessarily be need for parks, which are sort of islands of nature in the middle of concrete and steel seas.  Much of the above ground environment would already be green and bustling with life.  But for the sake of birds, bees, and such, green corridors could also be designed.  These might form a sort of grid pattern across the entirety of the city, allowing someone, if they were so inclined to walk from one side to the other without ever crossing a street or entering a building.


    What about all that crime?  Crime is actually on the decline nation wide.  Those gang-run open war city streets of every ‘near future’ film from the 80s never happened, and show no sign of happening (Detroit aside).  And what causes crime?  Well, I’m no expert, but poverty is obviously a factor (not the only one, but a big one).  A new style of city won’t stop crime.  Unless or until human nature changes, we will always have crime.  Just like we will always have poverty.  All the utopian idealism in the world ain’t gonna change human nature.  At least, not any  time soon.  No doubt there will be crime in my city of the future.  I don’t have a fix for that.  But I have heard many reports of research done in poor neighborhoods where simply by improving the appearance of the buildings and parks, they’ve helped to reduce the local crime.  This city should do that.  And with easy access public transportation, and less demand on energy, one would hope employment wouldn’t be as much of an issue.  Still, that is not a given, and is an area someone more versed in social behaviors might have something to add.  But I would hope the open, fresh air, and green everywhere, would help those who live in the city build stronger community ties, which could only help reduce overall criminal activity.  And again, living in a small area that has as much population as the entire state I came from, I feel safe like I never did on the streets of Bangor.  The crime rate here is far lower.  Yet, there’s still poverty.  But the area is cleaner, nicer, and less depressing.  There is a lot to do, and its within reach of younger people.  And that really seems to help.


    The social environment created by cities is another amazing feature one could write volumes on (and some have).  Even in my limited way, I’ve had contact with people from all over the world, eaten new and exciting foods, and seen movies that would never have played at the local multiplex in Bangor.  I’ve seen my favorite living musical artist, P.J. Harvey, in concert.  I saw Henry Rollins and Nine Inch Nails.  I’ve watched silent films with live musical accompaniment.  I’ve been to comic conventions and horror conventions.  I saw Casablanca, Metropolis, Logan’s Run, Blade Runner, and Evil Dead on the big screen.  I’ve seen exotic animals.  I’ve seen famous pieces of art up close.  And with the exception of one brief excursion to Philadelphia, I haven’t been much more than an hour away from DC in almost six years.   In my city of the future, this would be even more true.  Connected by a web of public transportation and footpaths, a massive variety of social and cultural experiences would be just a brief bus or train trip away.


    The question becomes, how does one make the city of the future?  I don’t have an answer.  Off the cuff ideas would be to OCP Detroit, or find part of an existing city like DC, Seattle, or even New Orleans to build a new core, with the possibility of expansion built in.  In my heart, I think the first such city should be built somewhere in the center of the country, to serve as a hub that will reach out with high speed rail to existent and newly formed cities.  I’m not an architect, geologist, or ecologist.  Nor am I an economist.  There may be any number of factors that I’ve never thought of in the selection of a location or specific design.  But thinking about the city of the future is the first step in making it a reality.  And maybe some functional elements of it could be used to improve already existing cities.  Here’s hoping the soon to be open expansion of the Metro will put public transit back on the radar of people in the DC area.  And let’s hope spiraling gas prices and continuous war will get people looking to other means of running the world than black gold.  If we take away the need for Middle Eastern oil, and in fact, the need for oil in general, we take away a big part of the reason our kids are getting chewed up in those deserts.  Applying simple sayings in our daily life isn’t a bad idea.  Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.  When did you first hear that?  Why do we work so hard to forget it?  It was sound when we were toddlers and remains so throughout life.


    If we are, as some scientists say, on our way into a mass extinction event (that may have started 10,000 years ago), well designed and crafted cities may just be a means to ride it out.  Of course, there will need to be other measures taken, including the absolutely necessary step of off-world colonization.  The technologies needed to create self-sustaining cities will be essential in the creation of self-sustaining colonies (and self-sustaining space stations).  And understanding how biological life has shifted the environment in various ways through Earth’s storied history may be the key to crafting new environments (over long periods of time) on new worlds.  By building our cities to embrace and be embraced by the natural world, we can help not only ourselves continue through turbulent ecological times, but help other species ride the inevitable waves that are coming.  In her upcoming book Scatter, Adapt, and Remember, Annalee Newitz explains that extinction events have happened before and they’ll no doubt happen again.  But we are uniquely positioned to do something about it, like no species has ever been in the past.  If we are the cause of our current ecological problems or not is somewhat irrelevant.  We should find out, if only to better understand the causes and figure out solutions.  But the blame game does no one any good.  Hand wringing and self-hatred is completely unproductive, and a luxury only high school students can afford.  The rest of us, we need to accept facts, learn from our past, and prepare for the future.  Part of that involves planning how we will feed ourselves, live together, survive, and thrive in the near and distant future.  Traditional farming doesn’t work.  Traditional city designs don’t work.  Hiding our heads in the sand and pretending there isn’t a problem doesn’t work.  Pointing fingers at everyone doesn’t work.  Facing facts, learning to adapt, and working together to create a better world just might do the trick.



-Matt

Monday, March 11, 2013

Book Review: The Department of Mad Scientists




Unlike so many of my generation (and many before), I do not think the world is getting worse and worse, that things were better yesterday and will not be as good tomorrow.  Yes, I understand that some things aren’t going well, from the extinction of many life forms to the chaotic effects on the environment unchecked resource squandering is causing.  But, overall, people are becoming more peaceful, more educated, healthier.  Primitive superstitions are on the wane and in spite of religions’ fitful and desperate attempts to drag us back into the shadows, science and reason are on the rise.  And this is thanks to more than just the famous champions like Bertram Russell, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, or Neil Degrasse Tyson.  It’s because of legions of dreamers, inventors, and futurists, people who strive every day to make the world a better place, to improve what we have and make what we need.  People who aren’t slaves to what has been done before.  This book celebrates an organization devoted to the concept of making the world a better place.  Out of so many books about waste and corruption, we see the story of a government organization that seems to actually work.  DARPA, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been instrumental in creating the world we live in and the world to come.  The internet?  Yeah, they did that.  Satellites?  Them again.  Understanding plate tectonics?  DARPA was there.  There aren’t a lot of things that came about in the last 50 years they didn’t have their hands in at some point.  The side effects of their projects alone have helped reshape the world and our perceptions of it.  And that’s just the stuff they’ll talk about.


Michael Belfiore was reporting on the rise of the private space industry when he kept coming across the name of a government agency in connection to various technologies.  Who was this DARPA which seemed to be funding so many obscure and seemingly unconnected elements the fledgling industry?  He had to find out.  It turns out, these guys weren’t so hard to find.  They just didn’t get much press because they were spending much more of their time getting work done on making science fiction into science fact than they were on making headlines.  He begins with a subject near and dear to my heart, artificial limbs.  Though the focus here is on arms and hands, which are far more complex than legs.  So much progress has been made (with so much more to go) in recreating the functions and forms of the human arm and hand.  Giving people back their personal freedom by giving them back that thing which separated us from the beasts, the human hand, is a worthy task by itself.  From this starting point, he goes into a basic history of DARPA (originally ARPA), from its brief time as America’s first space agency to its redefined mission as think tank devoted to birthing and nurturing the future.


Then there’s the Trauma Pod.  Right out of the pages of classic science fiction, this mobile robotic medic will mean the difference between life and death for soldiers on the battlefront, and eventually accident victims here and around the world.  And in the meantime, technologies to remote operate across the world, to work inside the body more precisely and safely, and to possibly treat people in deep space have all been fostered.  The potentials of this project boggle the mind, and the people working on it are kind of amazing.  I got genuinely misty at the good this cold do when put into practical use.  Up next, in an attempt to woo DARPA’s public relations person into letting him get more access (oh, and cover some pretty amazing tech developments), Belfiore goes to see the road test race of several robot vehicles and meets the teams (so many Germans) behind them.  They’re motivated by different things, but all are on the path to creating something that might revitalize automotives first on the battlefield and later on city streets.  At that event (and throughout the book), there are heroes on the front of advancing technology, like Red Whittaker, a hard-nosed ex-Marine with a ‘second place ain’t good enough’ attitude toward automated vehicle contests, who doesn’t hesitate to offer assistance to an opposing team when their car runs into trouble.  Because it’s about winning, sure.  But it’s about a ‘rising tide’ of technological advancement, too.  His drive to win goes hand in hand with his drive to bring everyone else along with him, which is the ultimate synthesis of morality and technology for which we should all strive.  What good is clean, healthy food and water if only a few lucky ones can have it?  What good is the internet if it doesn’t connect the world?  What good is advanced medicine if it isn’t used on those who need it?  We celebrate good sportsmanship because it shows the best of us.  It shows that competing and striving to be the best does not mean one must forget community and civility.  We must reach for the stars not simply to achieve them, but to lift everyone else along with us.


As the book goes on, Belfiore goes into DARPA’s return to space technology, with the research into scramjet technology, engines that could revolutionize flying and our ability to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.  How does flying half way around the world in 4 hours sound?  Better than the 20+ hour trips we do now, right?  Like everything else, like ARPA-Net, GPS, and robot piloted cars, the military applications are the focus, but nobody working on the projects is blind to their potential civilian effects.  But I think because you have a lot of people (OK, I’ll say it, under-educated right-wing nutters) who love to rattle the sabers and thump their chests, and because like science, the military has been largely vilified in film for the last 40 years (often by the left-wing equivalent nutters), one can forget that a lot of very smart people with their eyes turned toward the future, work within the various departments of the military.  Throughout the book, we meet scientists and scholars who are not bogged down with the party line.  Nobody is questioning the science of evolution or damages of climate change, nor are they questioning the need for advanced weaponry.  These are practical, scientifically minded people who are trying, in their own ways, to make the world a better place.  And yes, they’re doing it by making better military equipment.  This isn’t the contradiction it may appear to be.  And nowhere is that more apparent than in the final chapter of the book, which deals with energy and energy security.  One project leader puts it about as plainly as a person could.  By creating and improving technology that would make our combat forces, from a single soldier to a division, less reliant on an energy supply chain (fuel, batteries, food, etc.) we they are reducing the root cause of those soldiers being in combat in the first place.  Considering that much of the world’s conflict is over energy resources, removing that factor from the equation removes a great deal of the motivation for war.  Not peace through superior firepower, but peace through reduced need.  (So people can just get back to fighting over which imaginary friend/soccer team they‘re devoted to, the way Xenu/Pele intended).  The creation of extremely efficient solar technology, cleaner burning traditional energy sources, and highly potent and versatile biofuel have the potential to be the next big thing, changing the way we live in new and exciting ways.  Having read The Vertical Farm a couple weeks back, which goes a long way toward selling decentralized food production (that is, growing food in less resource demanding towers near where it will be consumed, as opposed to vast stretches of farmland removed from population centers, as it is now), the potential decentralization of power production is an exciting parallel development.  I could easily see them coming together and working in tandem as time goes on.  Combining these ideas with cleaner, safer forms of mass transit like mag-rail (not to mention more bike-friendly roads for population centers), the bio-bridges to link ecosystems across highways and what have you, and so many other concepts being realized these days, could we be on the cusp of something really grand?


With space exploration and eventual colonization, I would argue, a necessary step in the continuance of the species for myriad reasons from the biological to the spiritual (not the supernatural), learning how to better use (and replenish) our resources, to better manage our energy needs, will be an essential step.  Along the way, doing things to halt and eventually reverse damage to our environment is a heck of a side effect.  We need not be consumed by the transposed guilt of generations for the damage done to the Earth.  We need to learn from it, change the way we do things, and look to the future.  Unlike science (the study of what is) and religion (the made up explanation of what we don’t understand), there need be no gap between technology and nature.  And through the use of advanced technology, we can create a more healthy and balanced world to live in.  It takes the will to do it.  And it takes the drive to create it.  My hat is off to the ladies and gentlemen of DARPA and those they work with who represent that will and drive.  And like Michael Belfiore, I we and our government can maintain the kind of ‘benign neglect that it requires to thrive.’  I think the government (and we who empower it) as well as private industry could learn a lot from the way DARPA thinks and runs.  And I know we have and will continue to benefit from it.



The Department of Mad Scientists: How DARPA is Remaking Our World, from the Internet to Artificial Limbs
Author: Michael Belfiore
Publisher: Harper
ISBN: 978-0-06-200065-1

-Matt

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Book Review: The Vertical Farm




My non-fiction reading of late has mostly been in the realms of history or philosophy.  It’s been a while since I read a science book, and I think I was starting to feel the absence.  So, I grabbed The Vertical Farm off my shelf and jumped in.  It’s a crazy seeming idea.  Or is it?  Build skyscraper farms in the hearts of our urban centers.  Why not.  We need food.  We need jobs.  We need somewhere for our waste to go.  We need new ways of feeding the massive numbers of people on our planet.  Why not build up?  Is everything Dr. Despommier suggests possible?  Will it all work?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  He comes right out on multiple occasions and says that he doesn’t have all the answers.  What he and his grad students came up with are a bunch of ideas which seem like they might work.  They’ll take effort, money, expertise, etc. to put into practice.  But what he proposes doesn’t seem to be outside of our current technological or resource reach.  He’s not proposing something that relies on an assumed advancement that may or may not show up in the next few years.  The primary stumbling block for this sort of project seems to be will.  Are people willing to do it?


There really does seem to be potential for indoor farming, built within city limits.  The ability to control crops, to grow them clean, to reduce water use, waste, and soil depletion.  The potential ability to recycle waste and water, creating clean water.  The ability to reduce the agricultural footprint on the land, one of the largest sources of a multitude of pollutants.  And the potential to create a great many jobs in the places people want to be (cities).  Not to mention reducing the vulnerability of our food sources by decentralizing them and securing them inside, and the reduction in fuel consumption and wasted food that goes into getting harvests across vast distances to the people’s plate.  The potential benefits are quite astounding, and the potential problems, while not negligible, do not seem insurmountable.  But again, it comes down to will.  When you have a large part of the population of what was once one of the most advanced cultures on the planet claiming that the environment is perfectly fine and that nothing we do can really damage it, in spite of incalculable amounts of evidence (and common sense) to the contrary, simply because their sports team (I mean political party) tells them that’s what they should think, I don’t have the greatest faith that the will to lead the world in technology and culture is in the heart Americans anymore.  I hope I’m wrong.  And I know there are plenty of us out there who genuinely think things can be fixed, made better, and advanced again.  If only the petty tribalism and superstition can be cast off, there’s no telling what we could do.


In this book, Dr. Despommier sells his heart out on this idea.  He clearly believes in it, believes it can lead the way to better, healthier, and more sustainable food production for all the world’s people, even the several billion expected in the next couple decades.  But he admits, it’s an idea.  It needs to be tested, tried, explored.  There will likely be problems he and his people have not foreseen, but there may also be additional benefits, new options and possibilities opened by experimenting.  What is sure is that we need to eat.  Traditional farming can not sustain our current numbers for long, and can not sustain our expected numbers at all.  Pollution levels are building up to potentially catastrophic levels.  And one day soon, something will change.  Instead of waiting for that to happen, and then suffering the consequences, he proposes we meet that change on our own terms, direct the way things go in a more thoughtful and logical way.  Nature is amazingly resilient.  As he points out, there are numerous instances where, once left alone, nature has repaired itself in much quicker order than people expected (the Dust Bowl’s rebirth, forests in the North East US, etc.).  But the key is leaving nature alone to fix itself.  That means more self-sustaining (so called ‘green’) cities.  Better public transit, better food distribution, better resource management, etc.  (I always find it funny that so called ‘conservatives’ are the most liberal about wasting resources.  Every old-timey person knows you don’t shit where you eat [pollution], and you don’t waste what you don’t use).  It means an end to farming techniques that have been used and abused since we first stopped roaming the grasslands.  It means learning from our mistakes and doing it better.  And it means finally admitting that we’re taking a hand in the shaping of ourselves and our world, and we should act accordingly.


It may be up to more forward thinking, or more wealthy and experimental nations to break this new ground.  Though that saddens me, like space exploration, I’ll take what I can get.  If it’s Dubai, Germany, or China, someone’s going to need to do something soon.  I wish it would be the United States.  Fifty or sixty years ago, before the religious right’s devastating war on science and reason, it would have been.  But now science is feared, facts ignored, and ignorance is celebrated as a virtue (it even has its own genre of music, sinisterly called Country).  No wonder we have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.  When a sizable portion of the population not only believes in, but looks forward to an apocalyptic ending of the world (they can keep looking forward to it until the Sun finally expands in another what, six billion years?), how can you get them to plan for the future and for future generations?  But again, like with space, someone else doing it is better than it not getting done at all.  I want to be proud of American advancement in science, technology, and exploration.  But I’ll accept being proud of human advancement in all three.


The book, in its conversational tone, is meant as a discussion starter.  He isn’t giving all the answers, but posing open ended questions.  He isn’t saying, “this is THE answer.”  He’s saying, “this might be AN answer, let’s give it a try, or come up with something better.”  He doesn’t ignore the idea of profit, or of  our less than altruistic motivations, nor does he condemn them.  We are the creatures we’ve evolved to be, and part of that is our hunger for more.  As is being learned more and more, doing things for the greater good of all does not mean giving up personal gain.  Quality of life today and in the future should be important to all of us.  This book is a call to action, to fix or let nature fix, the mistakes of our past, and to learn from them.  It’s time to change the way we farm.  Time to change the way we feed ourselves and others.  Time to stop being a slave to the whims of the environment, and time to stop being an agent of destruction in that environment.  There is plenty of room on this Earth (and possibly on countless other worlds), and we have the tools to live together.  We only lack the willingness to do it.  Read the book for a boost of hope and for some ideas.  It’s a starting point, not a finish.




The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century
Author: Dr. Dickson Despommier
Publisher: Thomas Dunne Books
ISBN: 978-0-312-61139-2

-Matt