CS food/water

these are necessary for life. how should food be grown/ obtained within the boundaries of a city? Water, if it is on the coast, can be obtained through desalinization, but what about food?

This is why I chose Australia as a baseline location. From The Clean-Slate City-State thread:

Quote :

Subject: Re: The Clean-Slate City-State 11.06.07 7:33

Now lets examine the problem of providing food for such a large concentration of population.

Importing fresh-water ice from antarctica has been mentioned as a potential source of irrigation and drinking water, and this may be supplemented with fresh water supplied from nuclear-powered dessalinization plants. Importantly, both of these potential sources of water are not climate-dependent. Although these methods will be more expensive than simply diverting a river or drilling a well, if they are done on a sufficiently large scale, they should at least be economically viable.

So it can be seen that attaining sufficiently large quantities of fresh-water for irrigation should not be a problem. The next problem, then, is one of soil fertility. Because this area of australia has been dry for so long, the vegetation needed to develop and hold onto the top soil has never had the chance to develop; allowing the sporadic rain that the desert has received to wash away any nutrients long ago. As a result, the soil here consists mostly of salty clays, with very little organic matter, and is therefore not very suited to agriculture.

Perhaps it is possible to 'revive' this unproductive soil. 'Terraformation' schemes have been proposed before, but I will not go into details here (although I will say that the large amount of organically and chemically rich 'waste' from the city may help to enable these schemes).

Perhaps a more viable scheme is to use the water to irrigate the large areas in australia where the lack of water, rather than lack of soil fertility, is the largest factor inhibiting agricultural development. These areas exist primarily around the murray and darling rivers, but also in southwestern australia and elsewhere. Once sufficiently irrigated, these areas should easily be agriculturally productive enough to support both the population of australia and Esperance City for some time to come.

It is also worthy to note that Australia is already a net exporter of agricultural goods (80% of all agricultural production is exported). Even at the current level of agricultural development, the lands of australia are capable of supporting a considerably larger population. Therefore, it is probable that Esperance City will rely on foods imported from throughout australia for some time; until it has the economic capital to develop the aforementioned large-scale irrigation schemes from which it can be self-sustaining.

Once this has been achieved, however, there may be so much agriculturally productive land available that australia may continue to be an exporter of agricultural goods, all of which will be climate-independent. In the future, these may be sold to countries whose food supplies have been negatively affected by climate change.

Yet another option is to consider "Vertical Farming":

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

- Mike

In all of history I don't think there has been a city self sufficient in food and water, so why should this one be? That seems to be an assumption here so what is the reasoning behind it??

Security of supply

I'd aim for as much decentralisation of sevices as possible. That means Rooftop gardens, alotmore alotments, and the like. Plus integrating the farm within the city. Dividing the city up into the smallest sectors practical, and having each sector self sufficient.

I think having the whole city self sufficient would be a good starting point!

But does it really make sense to have to buy the most basic necessities from somewhere else?

Security of supply generally means a diversity of suppliers in a market economy, so being your own sole supplier wouldn't necessarily secure anything, as for rooftop gardens and vast allotments, cheap food is dependent on scale and efficiency and the application of technology. Not the Sunday gardener. Cheap food is about minimizing the work put in to bring every calorie to a waiting mouth.
Water supply is just a function of energy for most places so unless the city is in the middle of a vast endless dessert it becomes a smaller question.

Well, coming back to your original question; No, self-sufficiency is not an assumption. I would imagine foods to be imported from all over. Just as long as the city isn't completely reliant on imported food. I think that situation would be quite dangerous, hence the need for sufficient local production. And by 'sufficient' I mean an amount that would insulate the city to the effects of future volatility in international food markets. Remember that one of the CSCS's primary advantages over existing nations is that it would be an 'island of stability'; largely insulated from the effects of climate change, peak oil, overpopulation, and general economic uncertainty that is sure to develop in the near to mid-term future.

- Mike

wouldn't that effectively mean a food growing capacity that would be survivable at least within city territory?

Solar Towers? They'd provide energy and food from their greenhouses.

When I said self suficient I meant in one particular good. Such as self sufficiency in energy done on the smallest possible area. Self sufficiancy in food might require a smaller or bigger area.

solar towers are ~8 % efficient.

As fun as billion dollar glass towers filled with plants would be, wouldn't it be more effectively spent on a nice mega irrigation project, like the one to irrigate the sahara from the med, or such like.

Wheat varieties that can be irrigated using salt water? I'm working on it.

There are certain types of grasses that grow on salt marshes. The idea is to hybridise them with Wheat, producing a staple that doesn't require desalinating the water.

lkm wrote:

As fun as billion dollar glass towers filled with plants would be, wouldn't it be more effectively spent on a nice mega irrigation project, like the one to irrigate the sahara from the med, or such like.

Again, this is why I prefer the current baseline location of southern-central Australia. It is common knowledge that there is a lot of untapped agricultural potential here (especially those areas around the Darling and Murray rivers). All that is needed is an economically-viable water supply. I've suggest that this could be provided from either large-scale nuclear-powered desalinization of sea water or from the importation of freshwater sea-ice from Antarctica.

Democratic_Anarchy wrote:

Wheat varieties that can be irrigated using salt water? I'm working on it.

There are certain types of grasses that grow on salt marshes. The idea is to hybridise them with Wheat, producing a staple that doesn't require desalinating the water.

Salt-resistant crops would undoubtedly be a real breakthrough, for undeveloped and developed countries alike. And I don't see why they can't play a part here also. I'm not sure that its ever going to be possible to grow plants with pure sea-water. But being able to grow crops in partially salty environments certainly makes things easier. For example, it is often that last step of water-purification that takes the most energy. Reducing the energy required to desalinate water would significantly reduce costs. Salt-resisitant crops would also be suited to the salt-affected soils of interior Australia.

- Mike

Certain grasses grow on salt marshes. Even good old hybridisation should be enough to make a salt resisitent crop.

I think giant 'plastic bag' Ag towers, with a mix of algae and yeast, could provide a basic staple.

Would there really be much demand for such a basic basic staple in a shiny new first world city of steal and glass?

no...but we could go full Isaac asimov, flavor it, color it, shape it, make a cheap good tasting synthetic.

Steel and Glass? Why so Dystopian?

Well, firstly take a look at the pretty picture in the top left corner, secondly what else are you planning to build a city with? Tulips and sunshine don't really allow that high a housing density.
Seriously, why do you consider all modern cities dystopian?

because they are based on dysopian ideals.

What are the dystopian ideals? Energy efficiency? Efficient land use? Support for large populations?

Inequality of all citizens, hierarchy, general agression vs general goodwill, randomity etc etc etc

It just looks it.

I would go for a more organic look, to the extent of merging technology with nature.

Do you mean inequality of opportunity or of ability?
Are you stating that heirarchies are intrinsically bad? Because every system has someone ultimately in charge.
Randomity? please explain.

things are often done haphazardly, oftentimes the whole city will be constructed without a plan, leaving roads that are difficult to navigate, more expensive utilities, etc.

I think we should design a mars colony for the amount of people in this city, compact it, then go with that.

I think a city might find it hard to be both organic and rigidly planned.

Have the city 'spoked', so there is a ring road around the main city with roads into the middle. Then fill in the gaps.

sounds somewhat like paris to me.

I was suggesting something like 'growing' houses.

Arghh!!! My house has green fly!
Unless you know some friendly Tokra I don't think that's too feasable.

Bending branches round to form walls? Growing a Giant Redwood and digging the house into it?

That doesn't really seem to me that it will permit high population density/fast growing cities.

Don't Giant Redwood take like 200 years to grow to maturity?
I think it would have to mightily genetically engineered, put a dash of electric eel in to provide power, chamelian in for a bioluminesacant tv display, could be good.
If you started with a nice domed steel frame and trained something fast growing and bendy up arround it, there are some plants i think that can grow together when they meet. Well, you might get an interesting summer house. and I mean that in an english country garden type of way.

Our proposed Clean-Slate City site is located along a stretch of coastline bordering a vast expanse of ocean called the Great Australian Bight. It is a roughly 1000km long stretch of desolate continental shelf, devoid from the bounty that other locations with similar conditions possess. The reason for this is lack of nutrients seeping from the mainland into the ocean.

Current conditions make it an oceanic desert. The main commercial fish species there is the Bluefin tuna, which is being overfished throughout much of the world.

Modifying and tapping into this resource could be hugely beneficial, providing large amounts of food for our city. The simple solution to making the area more productive is fertilizing it.

Our city will be producing great quantities of garbage daily, and much of this could be converted to fertilizer. Simply set up a fleet of ships, and feed the microorganisms and plankton that are already there. They'll multiply quickly, providing a greater food supply for native fish. Hatchery-raised native fry could be released as well to speed up the process.

Within a few short years, our coastline could be one of the most productive marine fisheries in the world. And all thanks to garbage.

Excellent point!

I suppose you'd also be using human organic waste? Just be careful to remove the fake hormones first. We don't want all the fish to be female.

Does rather face the small problem that it's undoubtable illegal under international law.

where and what? using fertilizer

But really.

lkm wrote:

Does rather face the small problem that it's undoubtable illegal under international law.

Dumping untreated waste, yes. But I think what Locksley is suggesting is using some of the cities natural by-products to create a good 'ocean-fertilizer' that could be used to bolster the ecology of the otherwise relatively dead nearby ocean. That does not mean using untreated sewage; no one would desire that! But carefully treated-waste, why not?

Reminds me of the proposal to seed the oceans with iron filings to generate artificial plankton blooms as a way of absorbing carbon-dioxide and thus mitigate global warming.

Here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

And one of the problems with ocean seedings is, again, it is technically illegal. The laws for dumping at sea weren't written with any sort of "well, if it's for a good cause, that's ok then." get out clause.

Marine Dumping (Wikipedia)

This is what you'd have to try and get around, given it works on a reverse list principle, and given you just thought of the idea, it can't be on the list, therefore you can't dump it at sea.

Well, I am not a law professor, but I would hope that the definition of 'pollution' might exclude potentially eco-positive schemes such as ocean seeding. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with this particular agreement...

- Mike

But that's the point There's a list of thing s that youcan legally dump at sea. If it's not on it, you can't dump it. Even if you seem to thik it's a really great idea and would be great for the planet.

Replace the word "fertilize" with the phrase "diversity-enhancing micro-nutrient introduction" and suddenly no one has a problem with it.

The London Convention and the 1996 Protocol seek to control pollution and waste materials being dumped into the ocean, but they allow permits under certain conditions. Even if what we'd be doing is considered "pollution" under the law, which is ludicrous, we could apply for a permit, explicitly stating the benefits of what we'd be doing.

Edit: In addition, they recently ammended the law to allow for undersea sequestering of CO2. Now if they can get away with that...

Edit2: And I was never suggesting dumping raw sewage, that's a little counter-intuitve. Everything would be treated, composted, compacted, whatever is necessary.

Personally, I would prefer to genetically engineer one of those fish that always returns to a specific place such that you could raise and release into the ocean a couple million baby ones and they would all swim home to the fish factory when they became full grown adults. Like putting the the herd out to pasture.

That's a good idea. We'd have to increase the ocean productivity if we wanted to support that many fish though.

Would we? We're already vastly overfishing most of the world, which implies the carrying capacity of the oceans is large enough to take many more fish. Otherwise we couldn't be over fishing it, could we?

Assuming the city is located in southern Australia, then yes we would have to increase the productivity.

Otherwise, better management procedures would cause fish populations to rebound on their own.