can we create more land

[sushi]

can we create artiifical more land or is the earth's surface area limited

wars are frequently fought over the limited amount of land on this planet

but what if there is a way to create more land and expand the surface area of earth not by filling the oceans but by expanding the crust


my solution is slowly replacing the substance (rocks) that make up the crust with better materials.

these new materials can expand and replicate, creating more land and surface area.

 

[sushi]

it will probably involve a geological nightmare if done rapidly and lots of people dying, but if done so slowly and gradually i think its possible.

an advanced civilization will probably have an aritifical crust on their planet and not a natural one that cannot be manipulated and expanded.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Why not just have floating cities?

Aritifical ground sounds expensive, but I guess it's doable. Maybe we can use plastic lol

 

[sushi]

Floating cities is a good idea, its still necessary to construct artiifical ground for buildings to build on top on.

it also defied to laws of physics and requires antigravity unless you are talking about outer space

its probably build feasbile to build large cylinders connecting earth to space

 

[Cognisant]

It's not the availability of land that's the problem, it's the carrying capacity of primary industries, people already live on the ocean where it is profitable to do so.

In theory an oil rig could be built that also serves as a floating hotel/resort and casino, and expanded further to contain permanent residences, agricultural facilities, processing and manufacturing facilities, and so on.

Except no nation on Earth is going to simply let you build your own private nation off their coast, even if you are in supposedly international waters.

 

[onesteptwostep]

If you ever get to take classes on ecological conservation or enviornmental studies, you'll learn that disrupting the ecosystem in a major way harms not only that region, but can have effects on surrounding systems as well. Land reclamation projects are costly, and not only are they costly, if not done right, literal lives are at stake. Engineerers put their careers on the line when they take on this kind of project. Disrupting the environment like so without proper viability studies beforehand can do much more harm than the percieved positive good.

Also in the context of climate change, I doubt that reclamation projects can last that long.

We also don't fight over land anymore though, we have the necessary technology and services know-how to live in fairly dense urban settings now. The problem in the contemporary world is the division of jobs across the globe and who gets to develop before who.

If we are talking about the conflict in Palestine and Ukraine, additional land isn't the issue, but what the lands themselves signify. Wars over land, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, was last tried by Adolf Hitler, at a time when technology related to high-density living wasn't developed yet.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I mean I am sure it could be done.
There is plenty mega things we might be able to do in future.
I feel like the question is aimed at land that would be as useful as the normal land mass.
The thing is we already have lot of land, we just don't use it properly.
If you look at US or Russia or Africa there are entire millions of km2 not used at all.
Everywhere you go there is plenty land.
Trouble is nothing grows there and its hard to make people move there.

So what could help in future is better planning of population habitats, that is cities, villages etc.
We mostly don't really regulate this stuff at all.
We just kind of let it develop gradually and plan projects as economy dictates.
This is were commies have upper hand.
They can just plop a cities in nowhere and plug in the electric and tap.

The thing is in future that legit might be the only way to manage human populations.
Right now people do zero future planning.
We have cities with terrible road planning, horrible spacial architecture, no green or nature allowed besides maybe parks or small shrubs, we completely neglect the idea of free spaces where people can loiter, we struggle with over used roads and constipated traffic or parking.
We also don't think ahead that crowded cities are terrible to live in.

We also don't balance economy, ergo one city is megapolis and the next village is a landfill with lets say petrochemical industry.

If I were playing a sim city simulator Id die of embarrassment.

 

[Cognisant]

This is were commies have upper hand.
They can just plop a cities in nowhere and plug in the electric and tap.

Capitalists do the same thing with mining towns and oil rigs, the difference is the capitalists understand that its an exercise in resource extraction, rather than ego fluffing, and don't set themselves up for failure by trying to raise families in the wasteland.

We have cities with terrible road planning, horrible spacial architecture, no green or nature allowed besides maybe parks or small shrubs, we completely neglect the idea of free spaces where people can loiter, we struggle with over used roads and constipated traffic or parking.
We also don't think ahead that crowded cities are terrible to live in.

Let me make it simple for you, the boomers own most of the real estate, especially in high demand areas such as close to capital cities. So when policy makers move all the all business and public service offices into as geographically small an area as possible that means all the young workers need to live as close as possible to that CBD (central business district) to reduce their commute to/from work everyday.

Regional real estate is falling in value because rural communities are dying, meanwhile the real estate near the cities keeps rising because when demand outstrips supply it's less a matter of what you can afford but rather what you're able to pay.

I call it The Great Squeeze, our society's most productive age demographics are being both literally and figuratively squeezed, wrung out for every dollar they've got, because the policy makers have portfolios of high demand real estate and the largest voting block is still the boomers.

It's the tyranny of democracy.

 

[sushi]

Geology and argriculture science is underated. after all, we live on the land, and these fields are not particularly taken seriously.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I call it The Great Squeeze, our society's most productive age demographics are being both literally and figuratively squeezed, wrung out for every dollar they've got, because the policy makers have portfolios of high demand real estate and the largest voting block is still the boomers.

It's the tyranny of democracy.

Yeah, if it generates profit, it will be done even if it is not a great idea.
Hence why capitalistic dynamics throw people into dynamics that make less sense in the long run.
Like it sure helps to cluster locations, and it was always done, even in medieval times, but today with cars and transport, this clustering becomes a kind of weird maze of concrete and almost artificial contentedness, but filtering out some of the values that brought economy forward.
If those things that bring things forward get neglected they lead to collapse of economy.

 

[sushi]

Let me make it simple for you, the boomers own most of the real estate, especially in high demand areas such as close to capital cities. So when policy makers move all the all business and public service offices into as geographically small an area as possible that means all the young workers need to live as close as possible to that CBD (central business district) to reduce their commute to/from work everyday.

Regional real estate is falling in value because rural communities are dying, meanwhile the real estate near the cities keeps rising because when demand outstrips supply it's less a matter of what you can afford but rather what you're able to pay.

I call it The Great Squeeze, our society's most productive age demographics are being both literally and figuratively squeezed, wrung out for every dollar they've got, because the policy makers have portfolios of high demand real estate and the largest voting block is still the boomers.

It's the tyranny of democracy.

real estate investing its theortically buying the cheapest land and building the best looking houses on top to make a profit.

but the downside of cheap land is that there is a lot of crime and violence.

people will keep fighting for more land and space in the future because the surface area of the earth is limited and fixed.

 

[scorpiomover]

can we create artiifical more land or is the earth's surface area limited

wars are frequently fought over the limited amount of land on this planet

but what if there is a way to create more land

Plenty of swamp land, plenty of desert, and plenty of hilly land that is going unused, because it's deemed not good quality for farming and living.

In the 1800s, half of modern Israel was swamp land, and the other half was desert. Then people started moving there, draining the swamps. Then they came up with methods to reclaim the desert.

I also used to take the train from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. There's plenty of green land that was untouched, because it's very hilly and so no real farmland there. But I observed that the hills each had dozens rows of low stone, making for a smallish flat surface, which could be used to grow crops on each level. The rows were clearly man-made, and so in the past, those hills were probably used to grow plenty of food. Just requires a slightly different approach to farming.

Probably the same is true all over the world.

and expand the surface area of earth not by filling the oceans but by expanding the crust

my solution is slowly replacing the substance (rocks) that make up the crust with better materials.

these new materials can expand and replicate, creating more land and surface area.

@onesteptwostep is probably right about this. Would probably work in the short term, but cause unpredicted consequences in the long term.

Australia has problems with this already because of a few species that were introduced from Europe, that were well-integrated into the local ecology in Europe. But because the climate and landscape are very different in Australia, those species acted very differently in Australia and caused major problems for the ecology in Australia.

So that's probably where we want to be more careful.

 

[scorpiomover]

I mean I am sure it could be done.
There is plenty mega things we might be able to do in future.
I feel like the question is aimed at land that would be as useful as the normal land mass.
The thing is we already have lot of land, we just don't use it properly.
If you look at US or Russia or Africa there are entire millions of km2 not used at all.
Everywhere you go there is plenty land.
Trouble is nothing grows there and its hard to make people move there.

So what could help in future is better planning of population habitats, that is cities, villages etc.
We mostly don't really regulate this stuff at all.
We just kind of let it develop gradually and plan projects as economy dictates.
This is were commies have upper hand.
They can just plop a cities in nowhere and plug in the electric and tap.

The thing is in future that legit might be the only way to manage human populations.
Right now people do zero future planning.
We have cities with terrible road planning, horrible spacial architecture, no green or nature allowed besides maybe parks or small shrubs, we completely neglect the idea of free spaces where people can loiter, we struggle with over used roads and constipated traffic or parking.
We also don't think ahead that crowded cities are terrible to live in.

We also don't balance economy, ergo one city is megapolis and the next village is a landfill with lets say petrochemical industry.

If I were playing a sim city simulator Id die of embarrassment.

One of the advantages of the way that Communist states were run, is that they could just build a city and tell people to move there.

The USSR also had 5 year plans. Their government had to set out plans for what would be accomplished in the next 5 years. So they had to be more realistic in what they promised, and had to try to fulfil most of it.

China is also an ex-commie state. Has many of the same advantages.

Liberal democracies don't run like that all, which is a shame.

 

[ZenRaiden]

China is also an ex-commie state. Has many of the same advantages.

Liberal democracies don't run like that all, which is a shame.

Yes, planning is essential for any larger collective be it communist or liberal.
What I see in my country is lots of moving goal posts, so politicians can never or rarely are held accountable, even when they screw up by the lowest of standards.
For instance delivering new textbooks for schools, only they are overpriced, and not ready for the upcoming year, so they are like *shrugs* .....
So planning sets stage for expectations, where its harder to weasel out.
It would be like me going to work and telling everyone that today I am not in mood to work.

 

[Old Things]

Wars are fought over resources that are on land. There is enough land in the world for our population to be tripled or more and it not be a problem.

 

[sushi]

Wars are fought over resources that are on land. There is enough land in the world for our population to be tripled or more and it not be a problem.

thats not correct, i think we'll kill each other with double current population now


space and Land is a shape , for instance a square.

land can only expand if the shape itself becomes larger, or the shape make more copies of itself.

 

[Black Rose]

If people had things to do then there would be no fighting.

The reason people do not have things to do is because people cannot organize together.

People cannot organize together because of disagreement.

Disagreement happens because not everyone understands the world in the same way.

Education won't work because we would need to agree on what to teach.

This creates a circle / a cycle of misunderstanding.

 

[Old Things]

Wars are fought over resources that are on land. There is enough land in the world for our population to be tripled or more and it not be a problem.

thats not correct, i think we'll kill each other with double current population now


space and Land is a shape , for instance a square.

land can only expand if the shape itself becomes larger, or the shape make more copies of itself.

If the world was overpopulated, I would not expect to see things like this:

 

[ZenRaiden]

Overpopulation is not a matter of covering the Earth with billions of people.
Overpopulation is a matter of available arable land, infrastructure etc.
If we would have the technologies overpopulation would not be a problem.
You can also take it as relative thing, for instance you can take UK a small island with 70 mil people. Its too dense.
Then you can take say Europe and most of the land in Europe is taken and populated, I took a flight from one country to another and all you see is houses, roads, cities, fields, farms, no nature.

 

[sushi]

Wars are fought over resources that are on land. There is enough land in the world for our population to be tripled or more and it not be a problem.

thats not correct, i think we'll kill each other with double current population now


space and Land is a shape , for instance a square.

land can only expand if the shape itself becomes larger, or the shape make more copies of itself.

If the world was overpopulated, I would not expect to see things like this:View attachment 7729

you might as well take a picture of siberia.

my point is is the surface area and crust of earth remained fixed and constant, or is there something we can do about it with creative engineering.

 

[Old Things]

Wars are fought over resources that are on land. There is enough land in the world for our population to be tripled or more and it not be a problem.

thats not correct, i think we'll kill each other with double current population now


space and Land is a shape , for instance a square.

land can only expand if the shape itself becomes larger, or the shape make more copies of itself.

If the world was overpopulated, I would not expect to see things like this:View attachment 7729

you might as well take a picture of siberia.

my point is is the surface area and crust of earth remained fixed and constant, or is there something we can do about it with creative engineering.

Then no. At this time, this cannot be done.