Talk:Ecumenopolis/Archive 1

Archive 1

November 2005

"Extrapolating the advancement of 20th century energy usage(??), urbanization will conquer the globe by 2200. However even if the requisite technology is forthcoming as predicted, cultural priorities could easily shift away from runaway urbanization in the coming centuries."

I removed this sentence, mainly because of the "(??)", and also because it has no references. æle ✆ 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"The growing realisation of the importance of preserving rural areas has stalled the expansion of city boundaries."

Is this really NPOV? Isn't this just a growth of rural romanticism or at least some kind of subjective thing? boxed 2006-05-23 15:58 CET

The vast "countryside" areas of the United States could be developed by 2200, but the locals would vote against any such move. Areas of farmland are being converted into suburbs at an alarming rate, but there are large populations of people (i.e. Amish, etc) whose sole purpose in life is to NOT convert to a modern urbanization plan.Fine Arts 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"For example, the Ecumenopolis in North America runs along I-95 from Portland, Maine down to Miami (c.f. the fictional Boston- Atlanta Metropolitan Axis (BAMA) of William Gibson)."

Huh? Unless you are actually ON I-95 (i.e. not half a mile east or west) most of this area is not much more urbanized than the appalachian trail. Just driving the 30 miles between Baltimore and DC feels like a trip to the sticks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.53 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

December 2006

Removed Kardashev scale, because it doesn't fit in the article. Interesting, but not particularly relevant. Mikepwnz 11:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Note about plural of ecumenopolis

After doing a Google search, both ecumenopolises and ecumenopoleis return results. However the -polises form returns 6 times more hits. This is my reasoning for saying the -eis ending is less common. This is just for the record so things are clear. JeffreyN 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On the scales that you’re talking about — fewer than a hundred unique sites put together (15 vs. 69 — a ratio of 1:4½, not 1:6), both forms are so rare as to make such comparisons almost irrelevant. For this hypothetical reader who wouldn’t be able to figure out what ecumenopoleis means from the context, it is given as a plural form at the beginning of the article. It is patronising in the extreme to assume that using the etymologically correct plural will cause such difficulties — particularly as all readers need do if they are confused is open the ecumenopoleis article in a new tab / window to be told what it means in the first sentence. The last remaining argument is æsthetic — it is undeniable that a /lɛɪz/ ending sounds a lot better, and is far easier to say, than a /lɪs.ɪz/ ending. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The numbers I got where from a simple Google search and yielded 6:1, however if the numbers you get are are 4.5:1, then my point still stands. A 25% decrease in the ratio does not change the fact that encumenopolises is more common. Moreover, the -polises form is logical based on the way the majority of people spell the plural of other -polis ending words. Considering this, it is not patronizing to use the etymologically correct form; it simply makes sense in the context of the English language. As an educated and very literate person, I was at first confused by the -poleis ending. While I of course figured out what the -poleis ending meant, I had to click on a link and read further to understand a word that otherwise would have given me no problems. This is a problem and obviously has been an issue for others. As I have said, Wikipedia should use the English language as it is normally used. This means sometimes language will NOT BE LOGICAL, and as a result aesthetics and etymological roots are irrelevant. In general, the forms you propose are exceedingly uncommon and would not be seen as proper English by many (in the same light, the majority of dictionaries do not support your position). But that said, I will compromise on one thing. In terms of how the plural of an uncommon word is listed at the top of an article, i.e. whether one is listed as more common than another, I really don't care much. I'll let that go.

HOWEVER, in terms of the use of megalopolises versus megalopoleis (or other -polis plurals) in article bodies themselves, I WILL argue for the use of megalopolises. Both forms of a plural cannot be listed in article bodies and the most commonly accepted form should be used (again, for the reasons above). Unlike ecumenopolis, the plural of megalopolis IS a relatively common word. Google returns some 50,000:2,000 for megalopolises and megalopoleis respectively. This is an undeniably significant difference. I argue that megalopolises is more appropriate. JeffreyN 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to add, I realize that we have been reverting back and forth this page quite a bit (perhaps too much). I will not revert changes any further. If the problem remains beyond this point, I will seek mediation and a consensus opinion based on a larger discussion. To Raifʻhār Doremítzwr, as it appears that you are in a minority on these issues (at least when considering those who have given feedback thus far), can I ask you to please not changes articles any further? If you still have an issue, can we take this to mediation? I realize that this is somewhat unfair considering the state of the article right now, but I ask this as a favor to a fellow Wikipedian. Thank you, I know we are both looking to improve this great resource JeffreyN 17:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Section

I removed the following section from the article, as it is entirely fictional/speculative and makes no reference to itself as such:

"The global urbanized area extends across world regions along recognized transportation trunklines. For example, the Ecumenopolis in North America runs along I-95 from Portland, Maine down to Miami. In Southeast Asia, continuous development runs from Hanoi to Bangkok then down via Phuket to Singapore, then over to Indonesia and the island of Java, ending at Bali.

The total global population was modeled ranging from 15-50 billion. Doxiadis recognized constraints on development, and concluded a 15 billion global population, mostly concentrated along linear strips of urbanized development, was the likely scenario. It should be recognized that in this future growth scenario (1) development would level off and be sustainable, (2) most of the global land area would remain open space.

A more environmentally friendly version can be conceived, with a global population of 8 billion, 80 percent of which would live in metropolitan areas that roughly map out a global ecumenopolis type of settlement pattern. In this case, primary resource production requirements are reduced and there is more open space amongst the development. Settlement patterns may range from exurban large lots in places to densely settled nodes like Hong Kong and Mexico City. Overall, average development densities might approximate the suburbs of England and Japan, with either row houses or townhouses with garden areas, or single family houses on very small lots.

Given a new wave of technology, perhaps starting sometime in the 22nd century, a new growth spurt could remake the global landscape, and increase population to 50-100 billion or more. A world undergoing this level of hyper-development would presumably either have its food imported from other planets, or grown in vast orbital or subterranean hydroponics facilities. A civilization capable of building an ecumenopolis is almost by definition ranked as at least Type I on the Kardashev scale. JayMan (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wookieepedia references

Are direct links to Wikia appropriate? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Implausible in the extreme?

Um. And what about the massive amount of waste heat a planet-wide city would generate, even with the most environmentally friendly methods of generating power and materials? Dbutler1986 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Response: Assuming there was a planet wide city, I imagine the vast majority if its population would be in climate controlled buildings/vehicles somewhat permanently. There would likely be no biosphere, so harm to the environment would be moot This also assumes an Earth-Like planet where excessive heat could cause harm. If constructed on a colder planet (think mars), the heat would be a boon to human residents. Implausible in today's world most definitely. But in a distant future where resources can be obtained from many other planets/asteroids in large amounts, the planet would function like a major metropolitan area does today - completely dependent on imports of food and materials, but on a scale almost unimaginable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.78.3.6 (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thermodynamic critique

It was illustrated humorously in a webcomic (which I sadly forget, might have been SMBC), but there is a serious problem that futurists commonly forget when conceiving of a megacity-world. Coruscant was the example they used but estimates in the article of 50-100 billion people, their power generation and living activities and industry still raise the problem. The simple matter is at a certain point the radiative emission of heat would no longer be enough to cool the planet, and being a closed system in a vacuum (a planet) there is no convection or conduction to speak of, meaning that at a certain point it isn't just greenhouse effect that would lead to catastrophic increases in heat, but the heat output of billions of living things and their society. The comic calculated that there was no way that coruscant could be livable, it's science fantasy not science fiction, so I'll forgive, but even estimates of 100 billion living sentients are pretty out there. Should this critique be mentioned in the article? 69.210.42.241 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not science fantasy and its barely science-fiction. Heat is not really so much an issue, Earth gets about 173 peta-watts of power directed at it, and of course must radiate the same away or get hotter, but keep in mind that with, day, 173 billion people that's a megawatt budgeted to each. Obviously we use nothing like that individually, in terms of personal or industrial use, so even appliances don't grow more efficient we're not even beginning to put an dent in that power budget, individual residential usage is less than a kilowatt. Also keep in mind that radiated heat goes as the fourth power of temperature in kelvin, go from 300k to 310k ambient and you radiate 14% more energy. So going from our current average of 287 to, say, 298, room temperature, is 16% more radiation or 28 more petawatts of energy we could have generated here, presumably by fusion or beamed in from orbit, or enough for 28 trillion people using a kilowatt of power each, which again is on the high side for residential usage. Now that said there is industry, transport, and the big one... food... to think of. People like to east close a million calories a year and if we're talking hundreds of billions, let alone trillions, of people on a planet getting their food then we're either growing it with fusion-powered, LED lit massive vertical farms or we're trucking it down from orbit on a space elevator, neither of which produces small amounts of heat, but is still well under a megawatt per person. Even if you're not using LEDs optimized to photosynthesis and all the hydroponic tricks we know, which put it under 100 kW. Past a couple trillion the heat build up an issue, but keep in mind that blackbody radiation is a function of surface area and temperature. Double your radiating surface area and you double radiating power. A ecumenopolis world city sort of assume crinkling the roofs isn't a big hurdle and you basically cover the planet's surface with radiating fins and antenna plus a material reflective to that temperature's IR radiation, like aluminum. You can also block off light from the sun too, a 1 millimeter thick disc(s) the size of earth at the Lagrange point is a pretty minor deal compared to doming an entire planet. In any event, yeah ecumenopolis is sci-fi but its actually very hard sci-fi, the only missing component is fusion or cheap orbital solar power, everything else is proven technology.Caasi560 (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

as unanimously outlined in the lore, Holy Terra is the only planet in WH40K that can accurately be described as an ecumenopolis. Hive Worlds are only classified as such because their population is so heavily concentrated in a series of self-sufficient, isolated hive cities, the industrial outputs of which almost always transform any wilderness outside of the hives into inhospitable wasteland. While a hive world's total population might grow to rival that of a small ecumenopolis, it would nonetheless still consist of individual megalopolises instead of the continuous urban region inherent to the definition of an ecumenopolis. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)