Since surface life is so perilous from external threats (like supernovas and asteroids) and internal threats like global climate change (warming or icing), droughts, storms, air-borne diseases, etc., could and should we move our civilization underground (and/or underwater) to escape these perils?
2006-07-01
13:26:38
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Pandak
5
in
Environment
Current Underground Cities:
Coober Pedy (Australia)
Matmata (Tunisia)
Mount Weather (US) for gov't in case of nuclear war
Cappadocia (Turkey)
Alice City (Japan) being built
40 million Chinese live underground
2006-07-02
14:26:08 ·
update #1
If you could create an underground structure that is earthquake proof and have sustainable pure and fresh oxygen replenishment (Say an orange tree or something), you would be perfectly fine underground. The only problem is that the tree would require sunlight for photosynthesis to convert your breathed out carbon dioxide into oxygen. I think that they have lights that you can plug in to do that. However, how would you get electricity for that? Maybe have an exterior solar panel that absorbs energy from the sun. The temperature would be far cooler underground and you wouldn't have to worry about rain or snow. But then you would need to have tapped into some kind of pure water to drink. But then again, what would you do with your own waste/bi-products. It's a great idea, just nearly impossible to implement. Besides, you would miss birds and rainbows before long.
2006-07-01 20:54:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by snowfreeze3 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Those places are equally perilous. There are underwater volcanoes. Magma lines run under the ground. There are pockets of natural gas that could explode. Earthquakes would be a problem both underground and underwater, as could droughts. (Just because it's under the ocean doesn't mean you can drink the ocean; changing ocean water to drinking water is complex.)
Disease would still be a problem because no matter where you live, you need air; people are going to pass it through that air. And the air has to come from somewhere, so wherever you pull it in from it's going to carry disease.
All surface threats would equally apply to undeground or underwater living. And even more would exist in trying to contain such hostile environments for human life.
2006-07-01 13:32:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by trekwiz 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
In addition to the other problems people have already listed, we would still have to come to the surface to get food. Plants are at the base of the food chain, and they don't survive very well without sunlight. Sure, we could try using a bunch of those special grow-lights, but running enough of them constantly to feed the entire population of the Earth would take way more energy than we could produce. So, we would still have to have people stay aboveground to grow and harvest the food, and we would have to transport it to all the people underground, and if a supernova or whatever destroyed everything on the surface, we'd be just as doomed as if we had stayed aboveground in the first place.
2006-07-01 17:43:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This really is a silly question. Supernovas and asteroids? When did we last have to deal with that? Even if something like that were to happen, how would moving underground help? It wouldn't. Droughts and storms would still affect us. Airborne diseases... uh, are you expecting that we won't be breathing anymore? That would still be a problem. The notion of moving our civilization underground is just ridiculous.
2006-07-01 13:46:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Adam 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've been living underground in a pre-fabbed underground house I bought out of the Popular Science classifieds for 8 years now. Talk about added security! With all of the extra moisture-proofing and so forth, the things great and long lasting, and heating/cooling is a snap.
2006-07-01 18:50:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pup 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Problem -- living underground puts you closer to the shifting plates of the earth, that lead to earthquakes.
How could we have an underwater society? There are still earthquakes that occur in the oceans -- that's what causes the tsunamis.
We are doomed.
2006-07-01 13:38:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by please remove me from here 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are folks that spend a lot of time underwater and underground, such as naval submariners and miners...and they hate it. Let's face it, we are neither fish nor moles, we were made to dwell on the surface.
2006-07-01 15:47:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by johnny_100pesos 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's a lot of radioactive radon gas underground, so I'd sooner live above ground. Besides, lack of daylight makes you depressed.
2006-07-01 13:33:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by zee_prime 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have thought about this same idea. I think underground living would be a good idea. It would definitely save on utility costs!
2006-07-01 16:38:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by jjangermayer 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can't dig deep enough to provide enough shielding from a nearby supernova. And you can't dig deep enough to provide enough shielding from a big asteroid strike. And if you could, you'd be in molten lava.
2006-07-01 13:34:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by cdf-rom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋