Tell me how to build a self sustaining modern society of 10,000 people

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me how to build a self sustaining modern society of 10,000 people

«‹›4 »

Captain Bravo: Feb 16, 2011; An Emergency Shitpost
has been deployed...

...but experts warn it is
just a drop in the ocean.

swenblack posted:

1. I think people are significantly over-estimating how fast electronics and whatnot will fail. Our space industry routinely develops electronics that last decades without any maintenance or replacement. There are communications satellites that have been functioning on orbit for longer than twenty years. They usually are disabled by running out of propellant or solar panel degradation long before the electronics fail. Sure, you'd be using up rare earth elements that will never be replaced, but I think the burn rate would be relatively low.

There is a reason 20-year old satellites can still operate, and it's because they're most hands-off. I'm not being facetious, when you put devices in the hands of people, devices break. There's a reason engineers say "If you build it idiot-proof, someone will create a better idiot." The only way devices last for decades is when one of three situations is in effect:

A) It's completely out of human hands, and has been designed to work autonomously. Medium failure rate.

B) It's maintained by a trained squad of professionals with exacting instructions for repair and maintenance. Think military stuff. Low failure rate.

C) It is maintained by someone with a complete understanding of how it works and how to fix it, and has the time, energy, and supplies to keep it in good repair. Think 1940 car owned by a gearhead.

That's it. If you put a device, handheld or stationary, simple or complicated, in the care of anyone else, they will find a way to break it within a few years. A modern society comes with a shitton of fiddly bits that people simply don't have the time and energy to deal with in the manner needed for it to stay in repair forever. Either you have a corps of custodians who ensure the people's phones, washing machines, cars, air conditioners, lamps, computers, and everything else that's a part of modern life stays in good repair, or poo poo will start to break within year 1.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 03:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 24, 2024 17:17

Aggressive pricing: Feb 25, 2008

Captain Bravo posted:

There is a reason 20-year old satellites can still operate...

In addition to your great points, oxygen. Our atmosphere is full of tons of corrosive elements and to expect something in orbit or space to decay at the same rate as something at sea level is ridiculous.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 03:26

P-Mack: Nov 10, 2007

redshirt posted:

What if fusion was captured perfectly into a limitless power source? What could you do with that? Is it enough to make a modern, self sufficient society?

Fusion makes hot plasma poo poo that you could theoretically use to heat steam that you use to turn turbines that you use to turn an alternator that makes electricity that is regulated by a bunch of other fancy gear, transmitted through power lines, has it's voltage dicked around by transformers, gets moved through switches, circuit breakers and a whole bunch of expensive, complicated equipment before it can be used. How much of this is being handwaved away is the question, because maintaining this infrastructure in perpetuity is well beyond the capabilities of 10,000 people.

Are boats, tractors, etc also to be fusion powered? If so, are they essentially fusion steam engines, or fusion electric? Basically I want to know where exactly the line between the magical and real parts of these machines and systems is, because it may affect the answer to your question.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 04:02

NihilismNow: Aug 31, 2003

tonberrytoby posted:

That sounds right.
The last time there was a major practical research into the topic of national self-sufficientness it was by the third Reich. From this we know that one can get very close to 1950s consumer tech with around 100 Million people as a maximum bound. With modern advances in recycling we could certainly improve on this, especially with some kind of scifi power source.

The Reich was not self supporting and had a a lot more territory than 10x30 miles.
Even then as they lost territory in the east they started having to depend on stock piles for certain materials (manganese for example) and would have run out of them if they were not defeated or able to retake certain Russian mines.
Working your undesirables and POW's to death (which was a fairly big part of the nazi economy) is also not a sustainable model without constant expansion.
In addition to all this they had goods that were imported before the outbreak of war that were used during the war but would not have lasted forever, for example the IBM tabulation machines to run the camps/economy efficiently.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 06:33

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

Most of the impossible objections here seem to fall into just a few categories.
1 Resources aren't infinite, you can recycle a lot but ultimately you are going to run out of some critical supplies.
2 10,000 people isn't enough to specialize into all of the different roles that need to be filled.
3 Unlimited energy is too vague. Energy has a lot of forms, and is used everywhere. Perhaps we should say unlimited solar power, or perhaps just say we have some massive power plant outside the island and some really big wires coming into the island?

Sound about right?

# ? Aug 6, 2014 07:40

Ratoslov: Feb 15, 2012; Now prepare yourselves! You're the guests of honor at the Greatest Kung Fu Cannibal BBQ Ever!

Thought sub-expermient: Imagine that you had an infinite energy generator and the ability to completely restructure human society on Earth. Could you construct a society out of the entire human population that was, sustainable, used modern technology, and maintained a modern standard of living? You are not permitted to posit any new technology in the construction of your new sustainable ecotopia.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 08:02

Lord Windy: Mar 26, 2010

To me, the biggest problem is the lack of space/expansion. Technology will stagnate for a few generations until the population gets to the point where it can begin to improve once again. But it wouldn't matter if they can't get the materials it needs to actually improve.

In your scenario we do have the option of mining the sea floor, but that technology is unproven (also mostly non-existent) and I can't see 10,000 people being able to maintain a fleet of ROVs that mine the sea floor. It might be possible, but the whole island would have to be set up to maintain them and build them. I wonder if would be possible to live underwater considering we have magic power.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 10:17

VictualSquid: Feb 29, 2012; Gently enveloping the target with indiscriminate love.

NihilismNow posted:

The Reich was not self supporting and had a a lot more territory than 10x30 miles.
Even then as they lost territory in the east they started having to depend on stock piles for certain materials (manganese for example) and would have run out of them if they were not defeated or able to retake certain Russian mines.
Working your undesirables and POW's to death (which was a fairly big part of the nazi economy) is also not a sustainable model without constant expansion.
In addition to all this they had goods that were imported before the outbreak of war that were used during the war but would not have lasted forever, for example the IBM tabulation machines to run the camps/economy efficiently.

The Reich is not here as an example for a good system. It is just the last time serious research happened in that area.
For example things like replacing manganese with some sort of substitute for most non-military applications, so they can save the manganese supply for the military.
Nobody would even try that sort of thing nowadays because it is just cheaper to buy extra manganese. So nobody really knows what sort of materials are actually strictly necessary for modern technology and which ones can be replaced with some more recyclable material.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 13:36

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007; Reporting for shovel mission Sir.

P-Mack posted:

Fusion makes hot plasma poo poo that you could theoretically use to heat steam that you use to turn turbines that you use to turn an alternator that makes electricity that is regulated by a bunch of other fancy gear, transmitted through power lines, has it's voltage dicked around by transformers, gets moved through switches, circuit breakers and a whole bunch of expensive, complicated equipment before it can be used. How much of this is being handwaved away is the question, because maintaining this infrastructure in perpetuity is well beyond the capabilities of 10,000 people.

Are boats, tractors, etc also to be fusion powered? If so, are they essentially fusion steam engines, or fusion electric? Basically I want to know where exactly the line between the magical and real parts of these machines and systems is, because it may affect the answer to your question.

The power generation is unlimited. Whether that's fusion, solar, nuclear, magic, whatever. But an electrical grid is mandatory.

Could it be maintained? What kind of resource stockpiles would you need to maintain it for 50 years?

# ? Aug 7, 2014 02:55

Keldoclock: Jan 5, 2014; by zen death robot

Ratoslov posted:

Thought sub-expermient: Imagine that you had an infinite energy generator and the ability to completely restructure human society on Earth. Could you construct a society out of the entire human population that was, sustainable, used modern technology, and maintained a modern standard of living? You are not permitted to posit any new technology in the construction of your new sustainable ecotopia.

This image shows how much of the world's resources we would need for every living human to have a certain standard of living:

The answer, apparently, is no. I'm sure if we had the chance to start over we could make it all much more efficient- to be honest I think social factors are our greatest problem. If we did it to the best of our ability, and had a world united politically and culturally we could certainly eliminate a lot of waste(both inefficiency from bad decisions (like every rural American man wanting a pickup truck despite only really needing it twice a year) and from conflict (war is the big one here).

# ? Aug 7, 2014 07:32

Aggressive pricing: Feb 25, 2008

redshirt posted:

Could it be maintained? What kind of resource stockpiles would you need to maintain it for 50 years?

It's impossible to say if it could be maintained without knowing the materials it's being made from and how they interact with their environment. I'm sure the data exists, but have no idea where to find it. I'd say you'd be best trying to find military records of base maintainence on tropical islands.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 11:22

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007; Reporting for shovel mission Sir.

Aggressive pricing posted:

It's impossible to say if it could be maintained without knowing the materials it's being made from and how they interact with their environment. I'm sure the data exists, but have no idea where to find it. I'd say you'd be best trying to find military records of base maintainence on tropical islands.

The component of an electrical grid are well understood - not by me though. I know you'd need a good amount of copper for the wires.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 16:56

Destroyenator: Dec 27, 2004; Don't ask me lady, I live in beer

Just going to throw out there that of your 10,000 people not all of them are going to working. There will be children, the elderly, disabled etc. and they will all need specialised care too so that's a whole other chunk of your potential labour force you don't have.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 15:58

Aggressive pricing: Feb 25, 2008

redshirt posted:

I know you'd need a good amount of copper for the wires.

And for the transformers and alternators, as well as several types of insulation, hydropoles/underground conduits, and decades worth of repair/replacement materials.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:20

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007; Reporting for shovel mission Sir.

Destroyenator posted:

Just going to throw out there that of your 10,000 people not all of them are going to working. There will be children, the elderly, disabled etc. and they will all need specialised care too so that's a whole other chunk of your potential labour force you don't have.

In this scenario, the people are all chosen. So I'd assume most everyone would work, even kids.

I'm still intrigued about food distribution. Would restaurants work? Grocery stores? Since it's a closed economy, I'm assuming there's no money and no need to pay for food. But could you actually run a mexican restaurant, for example? Or a grocery store?

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:26

Antifreeze Head: Jun 6, 2005; It begins; Pillbug

Turns out that you can use silver in place of copper at a ratio of 11:10.

If you have unlimited money, you may as well have the fanciest power lines around.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:28

embee: Jun 18, 2004

Actually, major power lines are made of aluminum. Al is less conductive than Cu, but it's much lighter and cheaper.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:29

ljw1004: Jan 18, 2005; rum

redshirt posted:

In this scenario, the people are all chosen. So I'd assume most everyone would work, even kids.

I'm still intrigued about food distribution. Would restaurants work? Grocery stores? Since it's a closed economy, I'm assuming there's no money and no need to pay for food. But could you actually run a mexican restaurant, for example? Or a grocery store?

I think at least half the people won't do constructive work. They'll be artists, writers, entertainers, actors, musicians, actors. They'll be the ones who satisfy the cultural needs of your 10,000 (rather than the techno-gadget needs or the food needs).

Why would you assume no need of money? I think money (as a token for barter) arises spontaneously even in small groups. Money arises as a consequence of labor-specialization + need.

Either you have a centrally planned island (hence, every need is met poorly). Or you don't (hence, money).

What you don't have in a closed system is CAPITALISM, i.e. the ability for money to grow through greater exploitation of natural resources or greater efficiency of production. So founding a Mexican restaurant will be hard. But running it will still use money like normal.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:57

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007; Reporting for shovel mission Sir.

ljw1004 posted:

I think at least half the people won't do constructive work. They'll be artists, writers, entertainers, actors, musicians, actors. They'll be the ones who satisfy the cultural needs of your 10,000 (rather than the techno-gadget needs or the food needs).

Why would you assume no need of money? I think money (as a token for barter) arises spontaneously even in small groups. Money arises as a consequence of labor-specialization + need.

Either you have a centrally planned island (hence, every need is met poorly). Or you don't (hence, money).

What you don't have in a closed system is CAPITALISM, i.e. the ability for money to grow through greater exploitation of natural resources or greater efficiency of production. So founding a Mexican restaurant will be hard. But running it will still use money like normal.

Agreed on the cultural requirements. Also, sports - so you'd need ballfields and swimming pools and all the related equipment.

My assumption is this has to be a centrally planned society. I don't see how it could work otherwise. If it wasn't centrally planned, what's the motivating principle behind anyone's actions? Profit? Does the farmer become the richest man on the island?

In order to harmonize resources, I further assume some system of credits would need to be run, such that for example, each person is given a 1000 credits to spend on food every month, and they can spend them how they like. This would ensure a glutton is not allowed to eat two person's worth of food.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:04

ljw1004: Jan 18, 2005; rum

redshirt posted:

My assumption is this has to be a centrally planned society. I don't see how it could work otherwise. If it wasn't centrally planned, what's the motivating principle behind anyone's actions? Profit? Does the farmer become the richest man on the island?

What's the motivating principle for why people work today? Is it just to get wealthy? Why do people work who are already wealthy? Why do some poor people not work harder? What is the motivating principle of any actions?

I think you're barking up the wrong human psychology in your vision of the island. I was impressed by the papal encyclical on work in the early 80s:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html

The Pope posted:

Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by work occupying his existence on earth

Work is a fundamental dimension of man's existence on earth

[capitalism]

For certain supporters of such ideas, work was understood and treated as a sort of "merchandise" that the worker -- especially the industrial worker -- sells to the employer, who at the same time is the possessor of the capital, that is to say, of all the working tools and means that make production possible. This way of looking at work was widespread especially in the first half of the nineteenth century. Since then, explicit expressions of this sort have almost disappeared, and have given way to more human ways of thinking about work and evaluating it.

[toil]

Toil is something that is universally known, for it is universally experienced. It is familiar to those doing physical work under sometimes exceptionally laborious conditions.... [and to industrial works, to intellectual workers, to scientists, to doctors and nurses, to parents]. It is familiar to all workers and, since work is a universal calling, it is familiar to everyone.

And yet, in spite of all this toil -- perhaps, in a sense, because of it -- work is a good thing for man. Even though it bears the mark of a bonum arduum, in the terminology of Saint Thomas, this does not take away the fact that, as such, it is a good thing for man. It is not only good in the sense that it is useful or something to enjoy; it is also good as being something worthy, that is to say, something that corresponds to man's dignity, that expresses this dignity and increases it.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:48

Captain Bravo: Feb 16, 2011; An Emergency Shitpost
has been deployed...

...but experts warn it is
just a drop in the ocean.

Also, allocating people a set amount to spend and assuming they'll make wise choices with their money... that's not a winning idea. :v:

If you give people just enough to live comfortably for a month, by the end of that month you will have a lot of starving, angry, poor people. And a few happy, fat, assholes. Human nature at it's finest.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 21:34

redshirt: Aug 11, 2007; Reporting for shovel mission Sir.

ljw1004 posted:

What's the motivating principle for why people work today? Is it just to get wealthy? Why do people work who are already wealthy? Why do some poor people not work harder? What is the motivating principle of any actions?

I think this is different because it is not an organic society of 10,000 people that just happened to be born on this Island, but rather a selected society of 10,000 people chosen for specific reasons to be there. And these people chose to be there.

This makes all the difference, I'd think. And why a doctor would accept living at the same standard as a farmer or fisherman. Because they accepted it from the start, and in fact chose it.

# ? Aug 8, 2014 21:58

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

redshirt posted:

I think this is different because it is not an organic society of 10,000 people that just happened to be born on this Island, but rather a selected society of 10,000 people chosen for specific reasons to be there. And these people chose to be there.

This makes all the difference, I'd think. And why a doctor would accept living at the same standard as a farmer or fisherman. Because they accepted it from the start, and in fact chose it.

Which theoretically would be fine, until you need the next generation of doctors.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 00:21

Aggressive pricing: Feb 25, 2008

If you fill a society with people so tame they won't gamble their food credits or create some sort of black market, they'll probably all die of boredom well short of 50 years. Either that or the few sociopaths who sneak in will take over in about a week.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 14:43

mobby_6kl: Aug 9, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Anyway, this is an interesting exercise, but also a very difficult one. "Self-sustaining" should be fine, but the feasibility of the whole thing hinges on how we define "modern society". As has been mentioned, a lot of the things we take for granted require a lot of specialized knowledge and immense supply chains to produce.

Case in point: How much farmland would be needed - simple, right? Just ballpark it based on population/farm area in the an existing country, imports and exports will roughly cancel out so should be good enough. Except that farm productivity greatly depends on the availability of machinery, fertilization, pesticides, etc. So, how many tractors we'd be able to produce (or even maintain), and what kinds of chemicals could we make? If we can build a tractor factory...

TLDR; I have no idea, but in isolation this isn't going to be any kind of modern utopia unless true AI and atom-level manipulation are invented in the 25 years.

# ? Aug 9, 2014 21:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 24, 2024 17:17

P-Mack: Nov 10, 2007

redshirt posted:

The power generation is unlimited. Whether that's fusion, solar, nuclear, magic, whatever. But an electrical grid is mandatory.

Could it be maintained? What kind of resource stockpiles would you need to maintain it for 50 years?

If we're stockpiling materials and spare parts, it's easy, as you'd only be replacing most components once or twice over that time frame, assuming you selected them for any required corrosion resistance. It's also a trivial, uninteresting problem at that point. An island that buys everything that it can't produce locally is possible and many exist in the real world. An island that bought everything it can't produce locally ahead of time isn't that different, especially over a relatively short 50 year time frame. Over a 50 year time frame, your infinite money, infinite energy island has an easier time than real world islands that have to actually provide something of value to the outside world to pay for their stuff.

# ? Aug 10, 2014 02:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Tell me how to build a self sustaining modern society of 10,000 people

«‹›4 »