Comments on: Under the dome: the Winooski that wasn’t http://futurismic.com/2009/11/11/under-the-dome-the-winooski-that-wasnt/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Sat, 19 May 2012 23:03:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: khannea http://futurismic.com/2009/11/11/under-the-dome-the-winooski-that-wasnt/comment-page-1/#comment-54228 khannea Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:35:08 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9530#comment-54228 Great idea, I fully support implementing it, but.... ...imagine being locked out. 'Outside' would become quickly worse and worse. Great idea, I fully support implementing it, but….

…imagine being locked out. ‘Outside’ would become quickly worse and worse.

]]> By: Jo Thomas http://futurismic.com/2009/11/11/under-the-dome-the-winooski-that-wasnt/comment-page-1/#comment-54012 Jo Thomas Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:28:57 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9530#comment-54012 And probably not a good isea until we come up with a way of reliably keeping the air breathable in said domes while keeping out the bad weather. That ion itself would probably take an awesome amount of planning and possibly legislation... And probably not a good isea until we come up with a way of reliably keeping the air breathable in said domes while keeping out the bad weather. That ion itself would probably take an awesome amount of planning and possibly legislation…

]]> By: Robert Koslover http://futurismic.com/2009/11/11/under-the-dome-the-winooski-that-wasnt/comment-page-1/#comment-53946 Robert Koslover Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:50:28 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9530#comment-53946 Indeed, sort of like giant rotating space colonies. I'm still hoping to live long enough to see those. Indeed, sort of like giant rotating space colonies. I’m still hoping to live long enough to see those.

]]> By: Paul Raven http://futurismic.com/2009/11/11/under-the-dome-the-winooski-that-wasnt/comment-page-1/#comment-53899 Paul Raven Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:23:30 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9530#comment-53899 Oh, I know you're right, Robert. It's just that little voice at the back of my head that always says "yeah, but it'd look <em>awesome</em>!" :) Oh, I know you’re right, Robert. It’s just that little voice at the back of my head that always says “yeah, but it’d look awesome!” :)

]]> By: Robert Koslover http://futurismic.com/2009/11/11/under-the-dome-the-winooski-that-wasnt/comment-page-1/#comment-53847 Robert Koslover Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:26:06 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=9530#comment-53847 "Is it perhaps time to reconsider Bucky Fuller’s geodesic domes as a last resort in our stand-off with the environment?" No, not in my opinion. First of all, cities are concentrations of people that, historically, have enabled commerce. The rise of low-cost extremely-broadband communications, in combination with robotics and automation, reduces the need to pack large numbers of people into small, tight, geographic areas. I expect that in the future, cities will shrink in population (some already are) as people will find such dense living environments to be less appealing. Second, it is easier to strengthen a single building against harsh weather than a giant dome. Third, a giant dome represents a single-point of failure kind of system, unlike a distribution of buildings. Structural failure of a giant dome over a city would be a catastrophe on a scale much greater than that of any ordinary building. Fourth, it would represent a terrorist target, in terms of both destruction and for increasing/concentrating the effectiveness of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Fifth, due to its huge size, cost and civic nature, it would be necessarily a government-run project. Such projects, based on history, are less likely to be cost effective than free-market ones, while at the same time represent huge opportunities for political corruption. In summary, although I have long admired the gleaming domed cities of science fiction, I do not think their time has come. Not yet, and not soon. “Is it perhaps time to reconsider Bucky Fuller’s geodesic domes as a last resort in our stand-off with the environment?” No, not in my opinion. First of all, cities are concentrations of people that, historically, have enabled commerce. The rise of low-cost extremely-broadband communications, in combination with robotics and automation, reduces the need to pack large numbers of people into small, tight, geographic areas. I expect that in the future, cities will shrink in population (some already are) as people will find such dense living environments to be less appealing. Second, it is easier to strengthen a single building against harsh weather than a giant dome. Third, a giant dome represents a single-point of failure kind of system, unlike a distribution of buildings. Structural failure of a giant dome over a city would be a catastrophe on a scale much greater than that of any ordinary building. Fourth, it would represent a terrorist target, in terms of both destruction and for increasing/concentrating the effectiveness of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Fifth, due to its huge size, cost and civic nature, it would be necessarily a government-run project. Such projects, based on history, are less likely to be cost effective than free-market ones, while at the same time represent huge opportunities for political corruption. In summary, although I have long admired the gleaming domed cities of science fiction, I do not think their time has come. Not yet, and not soon.

]]>