|
a lovely poster posted:You do realize that not all of humanity exists under the umbrella of civilization, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. That moral outrage that you feel when primitivists suggest that the long term plan which results in the least deaths might be moving away from industrialism prevents you from actually understanding their position.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Except that's not the long term plan which results in the least deaths. Gripping argument. I actually agree with you (which I mentioned in my post) although the current neoliberal approach will end in much more bloodshed than a primitivist's would. We need radical change. Primitivsists offer a method of that change, albeit one I disagree with. I still respect that a lot more than the status quo "don't worry, humanity will figure this one out!" while admonishing those trying to solve the problems your genocidal ideology is driving as genocidal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 13:13
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I don't think you really know what genocide means and it's not like primitivists blindly endorse the deaths of billions of people. The reason they take action like this is BECAUSE of the imminent death of even more people. Even more people? In case you don't know, the estimate of human beings during the tribal era was maybe 1 percent of what it it is right now. How much more than the death of 99% of humankind are you talking about? Also do you think death by gross mismanagement, neglect and oversight is genocide? You seem to be all up in arms with semantics so you could clarify that for me. quote:I'm not a primitivist, but I will say that there's a lot more logic to their ideology than the average western neoliberal who actively endorses in-progress genocides like that of the Palestinians in Israel while condemning other ideologies for "promoting genocide" in spite of the fact that I've never seen a primitivst call for anything like genocide. They endorse the death of billions of people that would be involved in the transition from a civilization society to a tribal society. How much closer to genocide do you have to get? Also where on earth do you get the idea I endorse Palestinian genocide, that is some unimaginably bizarre logic. Is that that the "lot more logic" you're talking about, that these people supposedly have? quote:You do realize that not all of humanity exists under the umbrella of civilization, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. That moral outrage that you feel when primitivists suggest that the long term plan which results in the least deaths might be moving away from industrialism prevents you from actually understanding their position. I don't understand the first sentence at all. "Umbrella of civilization", what is that supposed to imply? It could imply one of many different things. Also, where are you getting the idea I don't understand their position? Have I misrepresented their opinions in any way? You are imagining a bias that doesn't exist except in an incredibly narrow-minded ideological framework.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 13:24
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Gripping argument. I actually agree with you (which I mentioned in my post) although the current neoliberal approach will end in much more bloodshed than a primitivist's would. We need radical change. Primitivsists offer a method of that change, albeit one I disagree with. I still respect that a lot more than the status quo "don't worry, humanity will figure this one out!" while admonishing those trying to solve the problems your genocidal ideology is driving as genocidal. Just to clarify, do you think it is moral to replace a genocidal society with a process that involves massive genocide? Do you think the ends justify the means or do the means have to justify themselves? Dusz fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 13:26
|
|
|
Balnakio posted:This a thousand times this. I hate to break it to you man, but we have nowhere to go. Theres some plausible planets out there that maybe we could go to, except for the niggling problem of being hundreds of light years away. Even at the high-end of plausible, getting a generation ship out there is going to take tens of thousands of years and even then we're talking another 10-100 thousand years waiting for the magical future terraforming machine to get all the horrible methane and I dunno cyanide or whatever it is out of the atmosphere. Since the time frame for "Were hosed" is measured in 2-3 digit numbers and the time frame for mass evacuation to tatooine is in the 5-6 digit numbers, this is not an option on the table, short of a loving miserable existance for a very small number of us on space stations , I dunno, somewhere. None of this covers the various implausibilities of sustaining a civilization in space for 10,000 years with it not turning into a very insane, very stagnant and very horrifying version of the sort of rot depicted on battlestar galactica. Heck if we get nutty enough with moores law, we might even be able to create our own cylons to chase us into the abyss. Theres even a primitivist ending for us at the end! The thing is, its a bit more plausible we just stay and scrape out a desparate existance on a nearly dead planet, pondering "who did this to us?". duck monster fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Gripping argument. I actually agree with you (which I mentioned in my post) although the current neoliberal approach will end in much more bloodshed than a primitivist's would. We need radical change. Primitivsists offer a method of that change, albeit one I disagree with. I still respect that a lot more than the status quo "don't worry, humanity will figure this one out!" while admonishing those trying to solve the problems your genocidal ideology is driving as genocidal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Even more people? In case you don't know, the estimate of human beings during the tribal era was maybe 1 percent of what it it is right now. How much more than the death of 99% of humankind are you talking about? Also do you think death by gross mismanagement, neglect and oversight is genocide? You seem to be all up in arms with semantics so you could clarify that for me. Gross mismanagement, neglect and oversight that leads to death? Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar... Oh yeah it's a criticism of any ideology you disagree with! I could say the same about your own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide quote:Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" Which ethnic, racial, religious, or national group do you see Anarcho-primitivists calling for the genocide of? quote:They endorse the death of billions of people that would be involved in the transition from a civilization society to a tribal society. How much closer to genocide do you have to get? Nobody endorses the deaths of billions. Some people view it as an inevitability. These are not the same things. quote:Also where on earth do you get the idea I endorse Palestinian genocide, that is some unimaginably bizarre logic. Is that that the "lot more logic" you're talking about, that these people supposedly have? Our current civilization has genocided countless people and killed millions, if not billions, over the course of history. Meanwhile, anarchoprimitivists simply don't call for genocide, in spite of what you've repeated throughout this thread. quote:I don't understand the first sentence at all. "Umbrella of civilization", what is that supposed to imply? It could imply one of many different things. It's supposed to imply that an enemy of civilization is not necessarily an enemy of humanity because not all of humanity belongs to civilization. quote:Also, where are you getting the idea I don't understand their position? Have I misrepresented their opinions in any way? You are imagining a bias that doesn't exist except in an incredibly narrow-minded ideological framework. Yes, you've said they advocate genocide, which they do not. the kawaiiest posted:I don't think humanity will figure this out. I also don't think that there is a solution at all, which is why I'm not offering one. We can't "live in harmony with nature". We can't convince everyone to start using nuclear power because that's not really in the best interest of the rich and powerful, who are in control of virtually everything. We can't use renewables because they're not viable. We can't convince Americans to stop driving everywhere, or the Chinese to stop burning coal. There is literally nothing that anyone can do. I agree a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Jun 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:07
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Gross mismanagement, neglect and oversight that leads to death? Hmm, that sounds awfully familiar... Oh yeah it's a criticism of any ideology you disagree with! I could say the same about your own. Way to dodge my question. Answer it straight, why don't you. quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide quote:Our current civilization has genocided countless people and killed millions, if not billions, over the course of history. Meanwhile, anarchoprimitivists simply don't call for genocide, in spite of what you've repeated throughout this thread. quote:Yes, you've said they advocate genocide, which they do not. Just to clarify, you are currently trying to defend mass manslaughter with a semantics argument. So to be clear, are you trying to say that the "equal opportunity" aspect of the manslaughter that the primitivists hope will be carried out makes it more moral? Otherwise, I see no reason why you are arguing over this at all except to shirk away from the ethical conclusions of primitivism with a non-argument. If anything, genocide is too restrictive and mild a term for what the primitivists hope will happen, as the mass dying they hope for is arbitrary in addition to being unnecessary and humongous. quote:Nobody endorses the deaths of billions. Some people view it as an inevitability. These are not the same things. quote:I agree This attitude you talk about is more or less the ethical equivalent of standing next to a person being killed and saying "oh well we all have to go someday". If you think this as well, maybe you should be more reserved when talking about morality. quote:It's supposed to imply that an enemy of civilization is not necessarily an enemy of humanity because not all of humanity belongs to civilization. Even if the second statement is true, it does not serve as evidence for the first statement. When 99.9% of humanity is involved with civilization, and most of them depend on it for their lives, the destruction of civilization would mean the destruction of humanity in a very significant way. Therefore, the people that seek to dismantle civilization could be seen as seeking to destroy a major part of humanity, therefore they are enemies of humanity.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:32
|
|
|
Dusz posted:Just to clarify, you are currently trying to defend mass manslaughter with a semantics argument. So to be clear, are you trying to say that the "equal opportunity" aspect of the manslaughter that the primitivists hope will be carried out makes it more moral? Otherwise, I see no reason why you are arguing over this at all except to shirk away from the ethical conclusions of primitivism with a non-argument. If anything, genocide is too restrictive and mild a term for what the primitivists hope will happen, as the mass dying they hope for is arbitrary in addition to being unnecessary and humongous. What manslaughter? I don't understand what makes you think Anarchoprimitivists would simply tear everything down overnight and let the cards fall where they may. Over a sufficient time period it's concievable that it be done without a massive loss of life. It boggles my mind that people who critique other economic or political systems seem to think proponents of an ideology want to snap their fingers and simply make all the changes at once. Did it ever occur to you that other people might actually care about loss of life?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Primitivists tend to be more about the local than the global. Guys like zerzan have more or less stated they'd be happy just to liberate Eugene, hoping that it would lead to other places liberating themselves. The major problem with primitivism of the anarchist form, is that I'm not a fan of the post-left stance. As much as I actually really like Zerzans analyses of historical authoritarianism and alienation (although some of its loving nuts) I really don't think we CAN untangle our alienation from capitalism and class. We've built a society premised around stupid consumerist excess that drives absurd profits for the bourgoise along with a loving mess of environental problems for the rest of us. Its all well to strap on the black hipster gear, stick on a backpack and try and live communally in a squat out eugene way, but its not going to do poo poo whilst the rest of the world still thinks happiness comes in touchscreen form gouged from conflict mines in a wrecked corner of africa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What manslaughter? I don't understand what makes you think Anarchoprimitivists would simply tear everything down overnight and let the cards fall where they may. Over a sufficient time period it's concievable that it be done without a massive loss of life. It boggles my mind that people who critique other economic or political systems seem to think proponents of an ideology want to snap their fingers and simply make all the changes at once. Did it ever occur to you that other people might actually care about loss of life? In the primitivist society they advocate, premature death would be a daily occurrence. There's a reason we recommend women have access to a hospital when they give birth, and have mass vaccination programs and distribute mosquito nets. There's a reason we use antibiotics when people are injured. Even giving birth every 4 years as in a hunter gatherer late weaning mode, a modern woman could have 6 or more children over her fertile lifetime, on average only two would survive to adulthood in a stable population (as well as the chance of dying in childbirth or of other factors before that reproductive potential is reached). The idea that when you have a child they will most likely survive to adulthood is entirely a product of civilization (and even today there are plenty of places where this isn't true). Hunter gatherer societies may be fairly egalitarian within a group, but inter-group warfare or low level violence is common in all but the most sparsely populated regions. Life in even an ideal anarcho primitivist society would be a lot harsher, a lot shorter and a lot more precarious than any of our lives today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
It's crazy to propose the notion that anyone in this thread endorses the death of any one person, not to mention billions of people. The only "primitive" scenarios are those that realistically look at the possibility that due to climate change, dependent-on-oil resource extraction, pollution, disease, loss of viability of soil due to mono-farming/terrible deforestation, and a multitude of other problems, that eventually these factors will wipe out a good number of people on our planet. It's a what-if, not an "oh boy this would be awesome if we could get back to our roots" scenario. If people like that exist, I wouldn't doubt it, but I haven't seen any in this thread. Anyone talking about sustainable agriculture, doing with less, etc., (at least I'm speaking for myself) is not an idealist, but a realist. Our current system does not work. You would just need to read the news to see how the current effects of climate change, terrible environmental policy in regards to industry, and pollution are already devastating to people and other species. I put primitive in quotes, because technologically, the past is not less or more advanced in capability than our present.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:55
|
|
a lovely poster posted:What manslaughter? I don't understand what makes you think Anarchoprimitivists would simply tear everything down overnight and let the cards fall where they may. Over a sufficient time period it's concievable that it be done without a massive loss of life. It boggles my mind that people who critique other economic or political systems seem to think proponents of an ideology want to snap their fingers and simply make all the changes at once. Did it ever occur to you that other people might actually care about loss of life? I get the idea that anarcho-primitivists really have no clue what they are doing on a larger scale. Which would make sense given the ethical conclusions of their ideology, along with the thoroughly unreasonable cult-like nature of some of primitivist activism. So with regard to that, I don't think it merits any consideration as an "economic or political system", as if its repugnant proposal for a nightmare dystopia wasn't reason enough.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Coming back to the space thing... We're not going to live in space. Not in any numbers. And for those few scientists and explorers who do, life there will be massively harder and more precarious than on even the most ruined earth. The most likely habitable planet we know of is Mars. The surface of mars is more hostile than more or less anywhere on Earth either today or in the future. Even in a post runaway climate change Sahara, life will be easier than on mars. Even if you have to live in an underground bunker to escape the heat of the day, there is liquid water within a few thousand miles in the future-sahara which you can pipe in and purify, not so on Mars. The temperature in future-sahara is physically liveable without a space suit for at least half of each 24 hour cycle, not so on Mars. A breathable atmosphere can be imported into your desert bunker from just overhead without having to enrich or filter it, on Mars you need to manufacture all your oxygen. Energy? Future Sahara can power solar cells. So can Mars, but in future Sahara if a cell breaks you can go out and fix it, and if you need to make new ones the appropriate minerals are available on the same planet. If your Sahara habitat gets a puncture it might get a bit hot and sandy. If your mars habitat gets a puncture, all the air escapes and you die. Mars has no magnetosphere and is bathed in hard radiation. Mars is colder than Antarctica and has less air than the top of Everest, and most of THAT is the wrong kind of gasses. And that's Mars, the MOST liveable planet, versus the WORST place I could make up on Earth. In orbit, or on gas giant moons, it's much much tougher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
duck monster posted:The major problem with primitivism of the anarchist form, is that I'm not a fan of the post-left stance. As much as I actually really like Zerzans analyses of historical authoritarianism and alienation (although some of its loving nuts) I really don't think we CAN untangle our alienation from capitalism and class. We've built a society premised around stupid consumerist excess that drives absurd profits for the bourgoise along with a loving mess of environental problems for the rest of us. Its all well to strap on the black hipster gear, stick on a backpack and try and live communally in a squat out eugene way, but its not going to do poo poo whilst the rest of the world still thinks happiness comes in touchscreen form gouged from conflict mines in a wrecked corner of africa. Or, to put it another way somewhat fitting to the discussion of the last few pages, as humans we're addicted to matching "good enough" patterns and groupthinking them out of realistic boundaries. Our limitations make it incredibly difficult to move groups in any direction out of their existing inertia. Even a cursory study of behavioural economics leaves you with the strong impression that we're hosed because we're hosed because someone sold us a hosed idea and we love it. The chances of someone finding and then selling us a non-hosed idea to get out of this predicament is possible, but low due to the aforementioned group inertia. Jared Diamond was on the right track I think, and Paul Gilding is very persuasive: we keep bumping up against our ecological limitations because its what we do and we're incapable of doing anything else unless we suddenly evolve out of it. We make unsustainable structures and defend them while they burn us to death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
duck monster posted:I hate to break it to you man, but we have nowhere to go. There's a pretty interesting thread over in A/T about how orbital space colonies are a lot more likely to happen/work than planetary colonies. I'm not suggesting we're going to create those colonies in time to escape our ecological collapse, but they do seem like a lot better option than the rather hare-brained idea of colonizing Mars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
MaterialConceptual posted:There's a pretty interesting thread over in A/T about how orbital space colonies are a lot more likely to happen/work than planetary colonies. I'm not suggesting we're going to create those colonies in time to escape our ecological collapse, but they do seem like a lot better option than the rather hare-brained idea of colonizing Mars. Again though, what can you do in an orbital space colony that you can't do in a self contained habitat on Earth, with far less chance of dying when a micrometeorite punctures your oxygen tank? Even a severely compromised ecology is still far more able to support life than literal hard vacuum and space rocks. An Antarctic dry-valley is an easier place to live than in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
Yeah, like if the surface of earth gets hosed because of, I dunno, lava and cyanide air and pterodactyls or whatever, we could just go live in the sea. Its still dumb as poo poo, but it makes more sense than space ,energy wise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Lunar colonization makes the most sense. You can find all the mineral resources Earth has (including radioactive elements). Microgravity is less of an issue (odds are you'll still have to get alot of exercise if you ever want to go back to Earth) We're never going to leave the Earth en masse. Maybe a few hundred people would be needed on the Moon, working alongside mining robots and conducting ecological experiments. It would be an excellent chance to learn how to start a permanent presence on Mars. Anarchoprimitivists do not put much thought into our dependence on modern medicine and other technologies, and definitely seem to fall victim to the noble savage myth (not that the archetype doesn't have SOME truth to it, but it isn't the whole picture). As I said earlier humans have always changed the environment at this point it doesn't look like we can stop the changes but we can roll with the punches and stop making the problem worse with more fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
A lot of the orbital colony vs. planetary/lunar colony stuff has been covered in the A/T thread. If you have even a small amount of curiosity about the subject, I recommend you read at least the first two posts because they lay out a very good case for choosing to use orbital colonies if humans decide to colonize space. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3484191
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
We can probably build a city-sized settlement on Earth that will be able to survive any environment. The technology for the most part already exists. With current and developing nuclear power technologies, it should be possible to stockpile enough nuclear fuel to last thousands of years. With sufficient power, you can purify seawater and make air from it. Food production is an unsolved problem, no one has needed to grow all their food "artificially", so there hasn't been much research in this area. However, with high efficiency gardening techniques and genetically modified crops I think a solution could be found, although there would probably be rationing and meat would be nonexistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
I wouldn't hold your breath on that. There's promising research being done on growing meat in labs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Yeah if civilization continues it will be alot different. The electric grid will be driven by nuclear, fully solar buildings, and wind/tidal/hydro etc. The production of food will likely become more controlled, not less. Genetic engineering should aim to maximize crop utility for farmers, not profit for firms. Tissue engineering could produce synthetic meat, however the expense involved would have to be weighed with the energy and moral costs of livestock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Dusz posted:I get the idea that anarcho-primitivists really have no clue what they are doing on a larger scale. Which would make sense given the ethical conclusions of their ideology, along with the thoroughly unreasonable cult-like nature of some of primitivist activism. So with regard to that, I don't think it merits any consideration as an "economic or political system", as if its repugnant proposal for a nightmare dystopia wasn't reason enough. I think you've been mistaking the call for less stuff, as in luxury items that haven't helped society survive as a whole; things like iPads, giant vehicles for grocery getting, fresh strawberries in December, and 2,500 sq. ft. homes for a family of three. Not  medicine and adequate food . If anyone in this thread has seriously bandied reducing these two things in this thread, point it out. A few kooks taking an idea too far mixed with a bit of hyperbole does not make a convincing argument. We might as well talk about death panels under Obamacare while we're at it.McDowell posted:Genetic engineering should aim to maximize crop utility for farmers, not profit for firms. Monsanto and friends would never allow this, and there have been, thankfully few so far, attempts to make the simple act of seed-saving for private gardening illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Tissue engineering could produce synthetic meat, however the expense involved would have to be weighed with the energy and moral costs of livestock. Interesting thing about that; because of how meat is formed, synthetic meat would be horribly unpleasant no matter what you tried to do to it because of how meat is actually formed (that is, many different tissue types interacting with each other). You'd be better off just shifting diets to insects and other easy sources of meat / protein.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Interesting thing about that; because of how meat is formed, synthetic meat would be horribly unpleasant no matter what you tried to do to it because of how meat is actually formed (that is, many different tissue types interacting with each other). You'd be better off just shifting diets to insects and other easy sources of meat / protein. Lab grown meat could still provide things like pet food and soup stock, though. It's not going to replace demand for real meat, sure, but that doesn't mean it won't be useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Interesting thing about that; because of how meat is formed, synthetic meat would be horribly unpleasant no matter what you tried to do to it because of how meat is actually formed (that is, many different tissue types interacting with each other). You'd be better off just shifting diets to insects and other easy sources of meat / protein. Tissue engineering is a new field, but in the distant future if you could grow organs or limbs for transplant, you can also make cuts of beef. But for most people that is pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
I've been thinking recently that with significant climate change being essentially guaranteed in the near future, perhaps it's time that we individually look into alternative means of living. We need to try to be as efficient as we can, but we also need to protect ourselves from the elements. As an example of this, there is a type of home I've seen in the last few months that looks very interesting from these standpoints, but it's kinda ugly. Basically, the structure is built as a thin-shell concrete steel-reinforced dome (or hybrid dome/traditional structure if you opt for that plan) which is essentially impervious to ice, wind, hail, tornadoes, fire, and supposedly even earthquakes. Despite the heavy-duty construction, the manufacturing company says it costs about as much as a traditional home ... with increasingly efficient cost-per-foot compared to traditional construction techniques as the size of the structure increases. This is due to the way they make the dome - they build an airform and inflate it, then coat the interior of the airform with the structure. This also makes it hugely energy efficient, apparently, as the airform is some crazy weatherproof insulation material. Frankly, after living here in Oklahoma all of my life and having suffered from all of those weather issues (and cracks in one brick wall from that one earthquake), I'm not sure that I give a gently caress about how my home looks if it's not going to be affected by any of that poo poo. Other things we could do are more traditional at this point include: growing our own foods (might have to take it indoors in the near future), water conservation methods, solar electric, and raising chickens (less work than other livestock, in my opinion). At this point, I don't see us changing the trajectory much by mass action. What other things can we individually do to prepare for what is to come (we've discussed it a little bit earlier on, but there is more I'm sure)? Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jun 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I've been thinking recently that with significant climate change being essentially guaranteed in the near future, perhaps it's time that we individually look into alternative means of living. We need to try to be as efficient as we can, but we also need to protect ourselves from the elements. As an example of this, there is a type of home I've seen in the last few months that looks very interesting from these standpoints, but it's kinda ugly. http://earthship.com/ I'm not sure how environmentally friendly they actually are but they're really cool as a concept at least, and afaik they are insulated as all gently caress and will also resist earthquakes and tornadoes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 16:35
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:You should look at Earthships too since they even include indoor vegetable gardens. I'd have bought one years ago if not for my husband who very much enjoys his midtown apartment living. They're incredibly environmentally friendly and actually quite comfortable to be in, though their use depends on your location on the planet. You don't want to be super far north or south or in a completely arid place and try and build one. They need enough light/water to function considering they're off-grid.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:They're incredibly environmentally friendly and actually quite comfortable to be in, though their use depends on your location on the planet. You don't want to be super far north or south or in a completely arid place and try and build one. They need enough light/water to function considering they're off-grid. Doesn't matter anyway, my husband would probably rather die than live in one. Which is a shame because I've wanted one for years, I think they're awesome. I mean look at this loving bathroom  Nnnng I want one
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
To be honest while the concept is awesome I really do hate the aesthetics of some of the earthships.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:To be honest while the concept is awesome I really do hate the aesthetics of some of the earthships.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
One of those dome sites had dome homes that didn't even vaugely look like they were domes at all. Earthships though....I don't think you can really do it with them. You might want to look at a High Thermal Mass construction methods instead. Lots of ways to go about doing it, you can even use SIP's if you like, tends to be pretty expensive with them though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 10:38
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:I wonder if it would be possible to make them look more like a normal house. I think their appearance is probably one of the things that really turn people off. I suspect the aesthetics of those are more to do with the fact theres an affection amongst old bohemians for sustainability. Don't blame sustainability, blame hippies. Personally i wanna live in a hobbit house. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:Aren't there a few Earthship communities in like, the desert in New Mexico? I love this concept, but they really need to work on the aesthetics. It looks like someone bedazzled an earthen house with glass chunks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:I love this concept, but they really need to work on the aesthetics. It looks like someone bedazzled an earthen house with glass chunks. Its old bottles. Theres a joint in australia, forget where it is, but basically the towns been made of caves, where due to the insane heat in the area is the coolest place to live. 16c no air conditioners needed. One thing I remember about all the houses built into the caves (Think minecraft!) was everyone had these walls made of concrete with glass bottles pushed into them to form a natural way for light to get into the room. It actually looked really funky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
the kawaiiest posted:I wonder if it would be possible to make them look more like a normal house. I think their appearance is probably one of the things that really turn people off. I don't think there is anything preventing that. The tub looks a lot like its just sculpted, which means you can sculpt it into the boxy square shape of a traditional tub, and the walls obviously don't have to have a bunch of bottles embedded in them. You could just make normal form factor windows with double pane glass or something efficient along those lines. As long as you're not too terribly attached to drywall and are OK with the adobe/concrete material you can go a long way towards making it look like a normal home, at least internally if not externally as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Its old bottles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coober_Pedy
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/12/us-iata-china-emissions-idUSBRE85B09W20120612 *record screech* I always thought this set of regulations was dumb and almost unenforceable. Did the EU really think that all these other countries were just going to roll over and play along?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 07:24
|
|