Home
I'm fascinated by trends that creep along in an unremarkable fashion until a tipping point is reached. One such trend is that governments will create more laws, codes, and regulations, until almost nothing useful can get done, and societies strangle themselves. We aren't there yet, but with every act of Congress, we get nearer.

Meanwhile, computer simulations are improving daily. An architect can build a 3D rendering of your future home or business and "fly" you through it so you can experience the space as if it were real. It's a cool technology, but on a scale from one to ten, we're probably a two compared to where that technology can go. Those 3D simulators will get better every year.

Another technology that is improving daily is online project management. You can sit at home anywhere in the world with an Internet connection and manage a project with participants anywhere else. But that process is still somewhat primitive compared to what project management is likely to become.

My prediction is that at some point we'll be able to create virtual projects that invite people to live in, and continuously improve from the inside, virtual cities. Let's assume these imaginary cities are floating on the sea, free from traditional governments. Once a project is formed, the participants will be able to design and modify their own virtual homes and businesses, design streets, schools, hospitals, public facilities, and new forms of governments. If we assume lots of similar projects are started all over the world, and they all monitor each other and borrow the best bits, these virtual worlds will evolve to become far better than the real world in terms of efficiency and quality of life. Then we can build the real world version based on the best of these cities, having thoroughly tested everything from the sewer system to the traffic flow in the virtual realm.

There are a number of projects underway to design cities on the sea. Some of them might be terrific. But how much difference might there be between an architect-led design and a crowd-sourced design that has evolved to perfection as a simulation? I'm guessing the difference will be huge.

To be fair, the crossover point will not be clean. The first real city based on its virtual model is likely to be a disaster. But what we learn from those mistakes will feed back into the simulations. In a few decades, I expect all cities on the sea to be projections of virtual cities that have proven themselves in simulators.

Imagine a virtual city in which participants can be simulated crooks just to test the police system. The crooks would ply their trade, and the simulated city would respond with ways to prevent similar crimes in the future. I'll bet a simulated city could reduce crime to nearly zero without giving up too much in privacy. Or to put it another way, I think the virtual residents of the virtual city would learn that privacy is overrated unless they plan to commit crimes. In the real world, I would be terrified to register my DNA and fingerprints with the government while allowing them to install a tracking chip in my arm. But I can imagine a futuristic form of government that has such a small likelihood of abusing that trust that I'm willing to trade my privacy for reduced crime. You can argue with that point, but that's exactly the sort of thing the simulations would help settle.

Banking and insurance would no longer be big abusive business models. Both would be reduced to computer programs managed by the government, which itself would be mostly tech support. Food would come from local fish farms and gardens. There would be few bugs at sea, and the city would locate to wherever the climate was best. All of the farming facilities would be attached to the city, so food would be organic, fresh, healthy, and inexpensive. Schools would follow the best known practices. And the city would train residents to fill jobs as it created them.

I also imagine a city on the sea especially for old people, free from the laws of traditional nations. These oldsters will have access to any mood-altering drugs they want, and doctor-assisted suicide will be a respectable option. But if you design the city right, the old people will have no interest in either mood-altering drugs or suicide. They will have plenty of entertainment in the form of communal pets, audio books, Skype visitors, and water jet wheelchairs to zoom around the city canals until an administrator remotely guides them back for their meds or meals. Someday, being old might mean feeling awesome and having all sorts of freedom.

If you imagine that the future continues to be designed by traditional teams of architects and engineers, you can only imagine incrementally improved lifestyles in the future. But if you imagine that the entire process for designing cities improves too, and the ocean provides us with a blank canvas, the future looks marvelous, at least for the people who can escape to the sea.
 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +6
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2012
If anyone with any clout is listening... after about 2 or 3 days of subscribing to a thread, my inbox gets flooded with spam posts to this blog. When you look at the page they're not there, so they're obviously being filtered out. Why can't the filter get applied to the email subscriptions, too?
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 10, 2012
Scott,

It's back in action. Thanks.

I thought you had left for the high seas...

.
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2012
Scott,

Strips and Mashups in the other tabs are not displaying. At least not in this part of the planet outside the US. Please order some drones to beam the pictures down here.
 
 
-2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2012
They would never *mean* judge us by our intentions, but they might say that, hoping a lot of people don't notice their intentions.
 
 
Feb 9, 2012
Scott,

This is a wonderful idea. Ideas like this need to be supported, developed, and tried.

There are a lot of challenges to this idea, it probably has more challenges than sending a human to Mars (and back), but something needs to be started.

I work with ships, and I understand the challenges of a city on salt water better than most.

It may be easier to put the Diltopia on an island than to make a city float. Anything floating takes a lot of maintenance, and the life span is 30 years at most using conventional materials. Not exactly environmentally friendly. Use of plastics would be great, but they burn, and a major fire in the middle of the ocean is pretty scary when you're standing on flammable material. Aluminum & stainless? Titanium? Better, but still maintenance required, and stainless is much more expensive than dirt. Concrete? Been done, can last a long time, but still expensive, and prone to fatigue issues when exposed to a dynamic environment (concrete likes compression, but not so good with tension).

I love the idea of cheap housing and food as much as the next guy, but 1,000$ (even 10,000$)per acre for farmland and large efficient farm machinery is a lot cheaper than hydroponics and hand labor inside a floating structure. 1 acre of ocean going ship = about 60 million dollars using conventional (cheap, but high maintenance) construction

I recommend work a deal with a broke island nation, and get them to agree to accept a steady tax stream in return for an island or two and to accept a separate government. A few hundred million dollars waved around will get them to pay attention.

Set up a government built from the ground up, encourage new ideas.

Might be better to do this as a start up company that provides some service to the world- maybe banking or something that is not manufacturing. The company structure would provide a product that the world needs, income for the city, and give the economy a base. After that, it's a question of growth and maintainability.

 
 
Feb 9, 2012
Imagine a world where the Columbian Drug Cartel uses floating cities as kick-off points to distribute drugs. Imagine a world where Occupy Ocean runs stolen boats filled with explosives into floating cities, because the cities are obviously peopled by those who unfairly stole from the poor to build them. Imagine al-Qaeda seeing these cities as anti-Muslim havens with zero military protection, and decide they'll be both an easy target and a bold statement.

Then imagine the person who came up with this brilliant idea, waking up to the idea that he didn't quite consider the reality of the world, and feeling very badly when the obvious results of this pseudo-Utopia are realized. I wonder if that person would then have any second thoughts, or merely say, "Judge me by my intentions, not by my results." Sort of like the Obama administration, but worse.
 
 
Feb 9, 2012
Our government, education, entertainment, and technology is largely a reflection of who we are. Scott, you must spend a lot of time around great people to have such a rosy perspective on the future. Normal people simply won't fit in your utopia.

Normal people are not very curious -- at least not curious in a manner that leads to useful skills. Normal people are completely incompetent when it comes to most things -- being unable even to differentiate excellence from mediocrity. Normal people have a pretty strong desire to change things for no reason at all. Normal people are also pretty lazy.

Crowdsourcing seems to work when you're dealing with money -- where everyone's contributions are magically transformed into a positive, similar, and proportionally equal value. It also seems to work somewhat when the project is so incredibly complex (like the Linux Operating System, or some scientific collaborations) that only naturally motivated, idealistic, high-end talent is willing and able to participate. Except in these types of situations, you really wouldn't want unskilled people to help.

Case in point, the "habitat for humanity" charity, iirc, produces houses that are habitable on average less than 5 years before poor construction results in serious structural, plumbing, or electrical issues that make them dangerous. Compare that with professional builders, who produce houses that are safe and comfortable for decades.

Of course... if your theory has the secret side-affect of extracting the brilliant and talented to floating islands, while the stupid and mediocre end up !$%*!$% salt-water at the bottom of the sea, your Utopia becomes a little more realistic.
 
 
-3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2012
Cities on the sea are never going to work. Because it's gay.

You don't want to live underground. You don't want to live in a spaceship. And you don't want to live on a modified giant oil rig on the sea. Humans want to be on the land and occasionally make a trip on the water.

Make it an island. That sounds a lot better.
 
 
Feb 9, 2012
Compromise
Crowd source falls down on this. Many of the design decisions are, liek all engineering, about compromise. Do you want, for example, everyone to live in low level housing or have a short walking distance to amenities? You can't have your cake and eat it. So Crowd Source will have a majority view, if the mob want short walking distances, there will be high rise that many don't like.

Whilst we obviously disagree on doctor assisted suicide, one of the practical difficulties with that concept is the pressure (real or imagined) that older people may feel by being a financial burden on others. In the current economic world, who is going to pay for the old-folks jet-packs?

One slight irony in that you have the government doing more not less. And somehow have gone from being useless to being very efficient.

Nevertheless lots of lovely positive imagination Scott, keep it up.


 
 
Feb 9, 2012
@dilgal

Normally with you all the way - this time though I don't think I can agree. Not sure that US or any other laws have come about from crowd input as such. 'Western Law' as such is based on Roman Law and the Bible (Canon Law etc). There may have been a bit of tinkering down the line, but this has rarely been crowd oriented IMHO but more designed to close particular loopholes, or, let's be honest, to benefit particular parties.
 
 
Feb 9, 2012
"the future looks marvelous, at least for the people who can escape to the sea." but pity about the fish? What have they done to deserve this?
 
 
+3 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 9, 2012
Scott Adams;

Good morning. Better choose a safer place for your utopian city. At sea, storms and storm waves can destroy. Under the sea, energy from storm waves and energy directly from tsunamis can destroy. On land, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. can destroy. How about your neighboring utopia ? Can the inhabitants be stampeded into a bloody minded mood aimed at taking over your utopia ? Outer space, on the moon, ateroids, lack of breathing air, etc. can destroy. So where do you plan to build this utopia ? In a dream, yes. Dreams are safe. But in the real environment ? Good humanistic thoughts, great mind candy, but isn't it time for a rethink ? Wishing that all have a grand day.

JAXID
 
 
Feb 8, 2012
you forgot magic unicorns....
 
 
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2012
>I can imagine a futuristic form of government that has such a small likelihood of abusing that trust that I'm willing to trade my privacy for reduced crime. You can argue with that point, but that's exactly the sort of thing the simulations would help settle.

The problem with any simulation, no matter how sophisticated, is that it's still "not real" so people won't take it as seriously, they won't plan as far ahead in it, and they won't be logging on for 8 hours a day to do things they probably wouldn't do for free - in other words, their motivations will be different, so the "human nature" factor will be skewed.

Incidentally, trying to marquee select text in the comments window to delete/copy-paste etc pulls up a mandatory "meebo" help balloon, which is IMHO profoundly annoying. The odds of me wanting to email part of my unfinished comment to my instant messenger friends are much lower than me wanting to delete a sentence without just holding down the delete key.
 
 
Feb 8, 2012
Just to reiterate, this virtual city would be crowd-sourced, but it really would be cities-plural, with competition between different cities and the resulting evolutionary pressures creating better and better experiences.

Green mobility systems would be important, and Scott touched on the importance of some kind of smart system that would retrieve old folks when their jet-ski wheelchairs ran out of gas. I would suggest a smaller gas tank and also some kind of automated sunscreen applicator, since balding heads could get really burned out there.

A city that counts on jet-ski wheelchairs might be edged out by a competing city with cigarette boat wheelchairs, as they're much faster. Then you've cutting-edge stuff like top-fuel hydro wheelchair boats and possibly wheelchair trebuchets that could instantly launch granny across and over the city, into the water beyond. Now that would be awesome.

 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2012
Odd, I had a parallel thought this week, only instead of on the ocean, creating a new bio-dome type project in the middle of the US, such as in Kansas. It would be largely vertical and would be created to create an ideal balance in a city, such as a limited amount of growth, a sustainable transportation system that didn't involve automobiles (although they would be available if people wanted to leave), etc, and somehow getting people to live there and to have jobs.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2012
Wow, is there anything you don't think the government should do?
 
 
+4 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2012
isn't your "cumulative knowledge" point at the beginning pretty much how we live now? especially evident is new trades and professions where there's a steep learning curve, and the experienced folk (teachers, lecturers, trainers) pass on their knowledge/experience to the newbies (students, trainees, apprentices and wotnot).

i think you've just invented schools.

and look how far they got us.
 
 
Feb 8, 2012
Well, one man's privacy is another man's crime.

Examples: Owning a gun, Watching !$%*!$%*!$%* Smoking, Drinking, Gambling, Gambling online, Voting Democratic, Voting Republican, Having sex outside marriage, Masturbation...
 
 
+6 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2012
This whole city utopia thing yet again... and the freedom versus crime thing.
I think the virtual experiment when it is all said and done, would end up looking a whole lot like what we have today.
My reasoning has a lot to do with the single biggest example of freedom versus safety that this country has gong through and is still struggling with. The source being the statement of fact below, coupled with all the US has gone through because of this problem, and where we are today. I found this statement at www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html.

"According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 43,000 people killed in fatal car accidents each year in the United States. Roughly, 40 percent of the fatal crashes are alcohol-related. In addition to fatal accidents, about 2.9 million people are injured each year. See Stats Below. "

It seems that we are willing to live with the above to have the freedom to:
Drive ourselves in our own vehicles where we want.
Drink alcohol as we wish.
Ultimately make the decision to drink and drive, or drive when tired, on our own recognizance.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog