Sci-fi writer Jim Laughter: "Polar cities no laughing matter"
>
> PRESS RELEASE
> contact: Dan Bloom
> danbloom@gmail.com
>
>
> Oklahoma science fiction writer Jim Laughter -- his real name -- has seen
> the future, and he's not laughing. He envisions so-called ''polar cities''
> for future survivors of devastating climate change disasters that will
> impact all four corners of the globe. Welcome to
> "Polar City Red," Laughter's 250-page sci-fi novel that is set for
> a 2012 debut.
>
>
> Forget the mission to Mars, and start thinking about the mission to the
> North Pole.
>
> "Global warming is no laughing matter," says Laughter, a grandfather of
> four in his late 50s and a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force who was
> stationed in Japan and the Philippines, among other places.
>
> "You know, I met a man just the other day who told me, who insisted,
> that global warming is just
> a myth," Laughter, author of ten sci-fi novels and a resident of Mounds,
> Oklahoma, told this reporter. "He saw a program on television that said
> it's a scare tactic
> to direct people's attention away from truly serious issues such as
> the economy and the state of international affairs. He's right about
> one thing; it's a scary subject. And if projections are correct about
> the amount of carbon dioxide polluting our atmosphere, we'd better be
> scared. We may not be at the point of panic yet, but the day is coming
> when this is world is going to turn its back on us and invite us to
> leave forever."
>
> "So I'm putting my heart into this new book," Laughter added. "It's for my
> four grandkids. I hope it helps to wake the world up, too!"
>
>
> "Polar City Red" is a not book written
> by a scientist, ''since I am no scientist," Laughter is quick to add. "But
> I am approaching
> the story as a family man concerned about the future of our planet. If my
> sci-fi story can reach a small audience at first and later reach an
> even greater
--
DANNY GRADUATION SPEECH TO CLASS OF 2011...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wnrm2jE-E
Polar Cities
I must prefix this post with a bit of back story…
A reader in Taiwan, Danny Bee, left a comment on an article I wrote
("Emily Yoffe Learns The Secret"). I had first assumed that the
comment was spam, though the suspect spam did not follow my
preconceived notions of spam. It had no sales pitch, no links, and no
inappropriate words. However, it didn't exactly fit the article on
which it was submitted:
Yoffe captures my concerns about the modern inception of philosophical
teachings. Not by coming out and saying it, but by a simple inference
from her experiences. I'll remind my readers that I'm not bashing
these teachings, only the glossy cover and Cliff's Notes by which so
many establish their adoption.
…and Mr. Bee's response:
Polar cities in the far distant future to house remnants of humankind
who survive the apocalypse of devastating global warming? The casual
reader might think I am an alarmist or a mere scare-monger, but I am
neither. I am a visionary.
So like a good blogger, I engaged Danny in some email communications
(to verify he was a real person) and tossed out the idea that I write
something up on my opinion of his comment. I did check into Polar
Cities a bit. Wikipedia has a very brief explanation of them.
Polar cities are proposed sustainable polar retreats designed to house
human beings in the future, in the event that global warming causes
the central and middle regions of the Earth to become uninhabitable
for a long period of time. Although they have not been built yet, some
futurists have been giving considerable thought to the concepts
involved.
High-population-density cities, to be built near the Arctic Rim with
sustainable energy and transportation infrastructure, will require
substantial nearby agriculture. Boreal soils are largely poor in key
nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, but nitrogen-fixing plants
(such as thevarious alders) with the proper symbiotic microbes and
mycorrhizal fungi can likely remedy such poverty without the need for
petroleum-derived fertilizers. Regional probiotic soil improvement
should perhaps rank high on any polar cities priority list. James
Lovelock's notion of a widely distributed almanac of science knowledge
and post-industrial survival skills also appears to have value.
As Danny says it, he's not an alarmist nor a scare-monger, just a
visionary. He didn't rule out cuckoo, though to be fair, zealous may
be more apt.
The idea of Polar Cities is in response to doomsday concepts from
global warming. Should the ecosystem collapse as a result of a massive
build-up of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, then this idea has only rhetorical value. As for the
development and planning of Polar Cities for this foreseen
eventuality, I think it either a bad plan or at least very
pessimistic.
The estimated surface area of our polar land masses seems pretty high
– almost 30 million km². Our population is over 6.7 billion at the
moment. If you do the math on just those numbers, you get population
density of around 224 persons/km². But I think that argument is far
too simple. If we assume that 3/4 of the earth's population dies due
to the volatility of the environment, you're left with 1.675 billion
people looking for ocean-front property. I was also being nice by
saying that we had nearly 30 million square kilometers of land mass
between our two polar regions. If you look at what happens after the
ice sheets melt, land rises from a release in pressure, and volcanoes
blow, you're looking at a lot less inhabitable land after all. I'll
cut it in half to 15 million km² because I'm skeptical about our
building too close to volcanoes, fault lines, and other natural
disasters. I also have to account for the plethora of lake and rivers
that would undoubtedly remain on Antarctica – not to mention its steep
mountain sides and craggy peaks. Now you're looking at a population
density of around 112 persons per square kilometer. That's actually
not that bad. There are far worse places in the world as far as
population density goes.
Now that we have a workable number of people, we can start analyzing
what this new homestead would be like.
I imagine a world metropolis at each pole (technically, the Arctic
surrounds the pole). All nations and all diversity of people have
centralized in two locations of the planet. The central lands of Earth
have become desolate and hostile. You can venture out onto them, but
survivability is contingent upon resources and exposure. The
populations live in high-rise hotels methodically placed in a grid
over the available land masses. The fringe area of decent land would
be more barren of people than the central, cooler parts.
Unfortunately, most people would need to be in Antarctica because of
its concentration of land at the pole. Each hotel would be surrounded
by land necessary to grow food and raise livestock. Everyone in the
square kilometer living unit would be required to do their share of
work to earn their food and living quarters. I'm not entirely sure how
waste would be dealt with – perhaps pumping it into magma faults would
suffice, but it may also be problematic in maintaining such a system.
A refinery would probably take up too much valuable land area.
There would certainly be a militant government in place at both polar
regions. I doubt anything more than a form of Feudalism would be
adopted. With so many different people from different backgrounds,
humans would probably resort to brute strength. With anarchy-like
crime abound and tough living conditions, citizens would surely
profess an allegiance to a "king" for support.
A glimpse into what living in Polar Cities might be like seems more
like a good idea for a Science Fiction novel than any reality we
should plan for. I can almost see an adaptation of "Firefly" applying
to Earth's new living conditions. While interesting to contemplate, I
think time is better spent learning what exactly is happening to the
environment, and reducing our adverse impact to it. Then again, if the
environmental changes are a natural evolution in planetary cycle, then
we humans are going to go through some hard times. I don't think
Darwin's theory of natural selection comes without its pain. A species
must suffer untold losses to survive with its fittest.
