Slashdot Mirror


Millions In China Live In Energy Efficient Caves

Hugh Pickens writes "Barbara Demick reports in the LA Times that more than 30 million Chinese people live in caves, many of them in Shaanxi province, where the Loess plateau, with its distinctive cliffs of yellow, porous soil, makes digging easy and cave dwelling a reasonable option. The better caves protrude from mountains and are reinforced with brick masonry. Some are connected laterally so a family can have several chambers. Electricity and even running water can be brought in. 'Most aren't so fancy, but I've seen some really beautiful caves: high ceilings and spacious with a nice yard out front where you can exercise and sit in the sun,' says Ren, who works as a driver in the Shaanxi provincial capital, Xian. 'It's cool in the summer and warm in the winter. It's quiet and safe.' In recent years, architects have been reappraising the cave in environmental terms, and they like what they see. 'It is energy efficient. The farmers can save their arable land for planting if they build their houses in the slope. It doesn't take much money or skill to build,' says Liu Jiaping, director of the Green Architecture Research Center in Xian and perhaps the leading expert on cave living. Liu helped design and develop a modernized version of traditional cave dwellings that in 2006 was a finalist for a World Habitat Award, sponsored by a British foundation dedicated to sustainable housing. Meanwhile, a thriving market around Yanan means a cave with three rooms and a bathroom (a total of 750 square feet) can be advertised for sale at $46,000. 'Life is easy and comfortable here. I don't need to climb stairs. I have everything I need,' says 76-year-old Ma Liangshui. 'I've lived all my life in caves, and I can't imagine anything different.'"

210 comments

  1. Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will advanced civilizations one day find our remains and conclude we were cave dwellers?

    1. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given that we, even now, are able to find records of civilizations thousands of years ago that lived in non-cave dwellings formed of far less durable materials than we use now, I'd say no.

    2. Re:Finallly history repeats by Fuzzy+Viking · · Score: 2

      Probably. It actually makes a lot of sense, especially here in Norway where most of the country is mountainous and the arable land is very limited. Of course, carving caves in granite is a bit more demanding than in porous soil...

    3. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some places, we still are.

    4. Re:Finallly history repeats by Cwix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have obviously not squeezed the Charmin.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    5. Re:Finallly history repeats by Idbar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah. I think this is just Foxconn PR to make people believe that living in caves is the best their employees can have and an awesome green environment. Next, they will say, they even have caves for their workers in their factories. Kiddiiing! ;-)

    6. Re:Finallly history repeats by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Will advanced civilizations one day find our remains and conclude we were cave dwellers?

      That's already a reasonably common observation in our current civilization (which sometimes characterizes itself as "advanced"). I've seen any number of descriptions of houses as artificial caves. This especially applies to houses made of brick or concrete materials, which are really just artificial stones. If you're living in an area that's mostly flat terrain, making your own mini-hills with a door in the side can be very practical. And we even make "hive" dwelling, which we call apartment building.

      Recently, there have been a number of articles published about the old middle-eastern house construction, that amounts to thick (1 meter or so) outer walls, typically of cheap mud-hay mixtures, covered with a layer of stucco for a harder, waterproof outer shell. The thicker the walls are, the better insulation they provide, and the more stable the internal temperature is. There are old and new "hacienda" style houses in the southwestern US built like this (and fakes that are made with thin stucco-covered walls that don't work nearly as well). It's not unusual for people to observe that this type of house is really an artificial hill constructed around a "cave".

      It's not much of a stretch to call most of our houses "cave dwellings". The difference is mostly a matter of terminology, not function. Pretending that we're "modern" is all well and good, but does somewhat mask the fact that the connections between our dwellings and our ancestors' caves is fairly clear once you get past the pretense that they're something totally different.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    7. Re:Finallly history repeats by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That makes it sound as if cave dwelling was the norm for humans in the Pleistocene. Actually the reason prehistoric people seemed to dwell in caves is because all the above ground structures they resided in disintegrated in short order, which only makes sense when you think about it. Cave dwelling likely was the exception to the rule, given how uncommon suitable caves are in the first place - the loess plateau in China is the largest of its kind in the world, so it's not surprising to see people take advantage of its properties.

    8. Re:Finallly history repeats by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will advanced civilizations one day find our remains and conclude we were cave dwellers?

      Humans have never been cave dwellers. They just happened to live in caves, too. That we find traces of human settlement in caves is a selection bias -- outside of caves, the evidence has been washed away. It was never a predominant form of settlement.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    9. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple iPad assembly. So easy, even a caveman can do it.

    10. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes. Some of us even live in mobile caves that never go anywhere. Fascinating.

    11. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's already a reasonably common observation in our current civilization (which sometimes characterizes itself as "advanced"). I've seen any number of descriptions of houses as artificial caves. This especially applies to houses made of brick or concrete materials, which are really just artificial stones.

      And exactly what do you suggest we should be using as an "advanced" construction material? Titanium? Carbon nanotubes? Energy fields?

    12. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Will advanced civilizations one day find our remains and conclude we were cave dwellers?"

      They won't find American ticky-tacky houses, that's for sure.

    13. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think the point of the joke is that the 'cave' is so big (loose) that even the scrotum managed to go inside.

    14. Re:Finallly history repeats by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      I think that I can speak for all married men when I say that we prefer our "man caves" or garages. The rest of the house belongs to the woman (at least in the U.S....yes, we have no balls here, she keeps them in her purse).

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    15. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want my ass to drip, water crawling down my legs, boxers wet.... Baby wipes are where its at.

    16. Re:Finallly history repeats by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      THIS. Mod parent up +1 Mad Practical

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    17. Re:Finallly history repeats by PRMan · · Score: 1

      In a word... Yes.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    18. Re:Finallly history repeats by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And here is the wisdom that science easily misses...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    19. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you walk out of the bathroom after using a bidet with water dripping from your ass and soaking through your clothes, you, my friend, have done it very wrong.

      1. Shit
      2. Use bidet
      3. Use toilet paper or built-in air dryer to dry your ass.
      4. Pull up pants and wash hands as you normally would.
      5. Leave the bathroom with a dry, well-cleaned ass that doesn't stink of your shit.
      5.5 Close deal with business partners or romantic interest who will no doubt like that you don't smell of stale poo.
      6. Profit!

      There is no "...?" step to fill in -- this sequence of events WILL lead you to a successful conclusion.

    20. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here is the wisdom that science easily misses...

      You mean the wisdom that anthropologists are well-aware of and that's frequently misunderstood in the popular media, right?

    21. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if (shit) profit;

      Nice business plan.

    22. Re:Finallly history repeats by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit!

  2. Nice... not by jimshatt · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's all well and good to praise this: "Life is easy and comfortable here". But... really? I would only live in a cave like this when my previous house was in a slump and this is slightly less miserable.

    1. Re:Nice... not by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Too bad you are narrow minded. I would pay $2,000,000 to live in a hole in the ground.

      http://www.silohome.com/

      I would LOVE to live in a decommissioned Missile silo.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Nice... not by necro81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you are sitting inside, how can you tell the difference between one of these finished caves and a house? Look around and its just walls.

    3. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The lack of windows would be a thing, I suppose.

    4. Re:Nice... not by wisty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If there's an earthquake, a house has a lower chance of burying you alive.

    5. Re:Nice... not by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My lady has lived in a cave in Greece and she said it was wonderful, just don't run around on the rugs or you'll slip and break your head.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Nice... not by ed1park · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, it's nice to have a bedrooms/bathrooms with a window. Not only for a view and some fresh air, but it serves as route of escape in case of fire or some threat at the main and only entrance.

      I wonder if radon and other poisonous things are a concern. But if your alternative is living out of cardboard boxes or a landfill with your children, then a cave doesn't seem so bad.

      Families living on landfills:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wfjgcSxEw8
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o9z43l55PU

    7. Re:Nice... not by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Only if it's built properly. On the other hand, a cave is less likely to burn down.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    8. Re:Nice... not by Like2Byte · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would pay $2,000,000 to live in a hole in the ground.

      Good news! Some day, you'll reside in one for free!

    9. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'down" ... it's not the collapse that kills you, it's asphyxiation.

    10. Re:Nice... not by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      You could have a few windows on one side.

    11. Re:Nice... not by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Yeah, going to have to put a "WHOOSH!" here...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    12. Re:Nice... not by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not really, My will states that I am to be taken to a taxidermist and stuffed and left on a park bench somewhere as a prank. From three I'm guessing it's cremation or a landfill.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Nice... not by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      You need a copy of the $50 and Up Underground House Book.. I read this in the 80s so it doesn't seem they've adjusted for inflation; still, a rude hole in a hill using PVC pipes for supports can't set you back that much.

    14. Re:Nice... not by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      "Light tubes" might help as well.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Nice... not by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You can't put any kind of earthquake isolation system on a cave either...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:Nice... not by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      It is unlikely that that particular clause of your will will get fulfilled, as it quite likely violates the law on the handling of a human corpse.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    17. Re:Nice... not by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps an entire series of tubes!

    18. Re:Nice... not by na1led · · Score: 2

      If the cave is not properly engineered, it can be a death trap. Just look at all the miners that die from collapsed tunnels. If you're living in a mountain, then you're going to be dealing with ground swells, and potential tunnel collapses.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    19. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if it is carried out. They would just bury him in a paupers grave then send the bill to his family.

    20. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh.

    21. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but it serves as route of escape in case of fire or some threat at the main and only entrance."

      Caves don't burn :-)

    22. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy's a trip. Look at his Papyrus-font, misspelled website for his hypnosis/NLP self-help CDs: http://www.freemindcenter.com/

    23. Re:Nice... not by schlachter · · Score: 1

      yes..but if there's a tornado or hurricane, a cave has a lower chance of being blown away.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    24. Re:Nice... not by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was thinking dedicate my body to science so that med students can dissect me, but have someone open me up in advance and put an Alien toy that pops out of my chest just as they get started. After that, it's unlikely there will be anything those med students can't handle in the real world!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    25. Re:Nice... not by magarity · · Score: 1

      If the cave is not properly engineered, it can be a death trap. Just look at all the miners that die from collapsed tunnels. If you're living in a mountain, then you're going to be dealing with ground swells, and potential tunnel collapses.

      That doesn't seem to be the problem for the caves in the article. Some have been handed down so many generations the family doesn't know anymore which great*n grandparent first carved it out.

    26. Re:Nice... not by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      The Air Force did it in Cheyenne Mountain. No reason you couldn't put a building inside of your cave on springs.
      http://justpiper.com/survival/nine-best-u-s-places-to-survive-the-apocalypse/

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    27. Re:Nice... not by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cave+home+collapse

      Indeed.

      I believe that claustrophobia is a natural instinct as much as standing in a fire is uncomfortable. And I've seen The Descent and read The Hobbit and I know what's down there.

    28. Re:Nice... not by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      True, space requirements and construction costs go way up though.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    29. Re:Nice... not by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Especially if you beef up security around the WOPR.

    30. Re:Nice... not by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's not free.

      You need to buy the plot. And then there's the whole bit about digging the hole and then filling it up later that costs money too. That's why there's life insurance. So yeah, even dying costs money these days.

      It is, however, where we'll all eventually end up. If we don't get stuffed into a jar and left somewhere exotic or scattered into the wind first.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    31. Re:Nice... not by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Fire isn't nearly as big a deal when your dormitory is not primarily made of flammable materials. Minor fires will naturally ventilate through an airshaft that you'd presumably already have for cooking under.

      Radon's a problem for underground dwellings. But these caves are on a mountainside. Which means they're actually elevated.

      Earthquakes are a problem though. But they'd be a problem irrespective of whether you're in a cave or a house. There are always engineering solutions for that, irrespective of whether you're living in an enclosed space underground or overground. It costs money to engineer a solution--but it's money that you would or wouldn't have again, irrespective. You might even have more money if you lived in a cave, since it's cheaper to dig a hole in an existing natural structure than to build an artificial free-standing structure.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    32. Re:Nice... not by medcalf · · Score: 1

      Go ahead, serve your no-knock warrant!

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    33. Re:Nice... not by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      I have that book. I was rather unimpressed.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    34. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, I like your use of the world irrespective, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter, irrespective of whether or not you actually publish one.

    35. Re:Nice... not by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well actually we're engaged now, but I haven't figured out how to type them fancy characters with marks over them and such.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Nice... not by ed1park · · Score: 1

      Yep, but things you put in them do burn. There are probably whole families living in these tiny spaces crammed with flammable materials. And hoarders/messy people make things much worse.

      And you may have someone dangerous at the entrance, or the "thought police" coming to arrest you, but no window to escape from. :P

    37. Re:Nice... not by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Fire isn't a big deal if the dwelling is not flammable? What planet do you live on. Your couch has enough toxic smoke potential to kill everyone in your home. Even if the walls are cement, I guarantee there is going to be enough wood, padding and fabric in every single home to create a fire of substantial enough size to kill everyone in it.

      With a contained environment like these caves the oxygen will be sucked out quicker and flame over (dramatized in the move backdraft) will happen faster. The IBC code requires that any living space where people sleep have a window, this is precisely because in a fire you need oxygen sources to survive and you need escape routes that are independent of the door because even today with dwellings that are damn near fireproof (all the timber is bathed in fireproofing chemicals, wallboard's purpose is to slow down fires, fire blocking, smoke detectors and dozens of other precautions) house fires still claim thousands of lives every year.

      A single couch ignited by a cigarette can create a fire that's burning at 1800F and pumping out enough smoke to fill more than 1000sqft of living space in 5 minutes. So tell me how much value those cement walls without windows are?

    38. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if i buy one of these silo's do i get a free turtle neck sweater aswell?

    39. Re:Nice... not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i had a carpenter who worked for me who build his own " earth sided house". Three walls were underground, as in he built it up against a small rise and then bulldozed earth around the two short sides. The front wall was mostly windows, southeast facing for early morning sun and cooler afternoons. The best story he had about it was how, early one morning the husband of one of my customers showed up at his house with a gun because his wife was there... spending some happy time with my carpenter. My C was stuck, there was no back door: serious strategy blunder.

  3. Problems... by bosef1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't read the articles; are these the same caves that collapse every time that area gets a strong earthquake, causing a huge humanitarian crisis as all of the occupants are buried under the hill?

    1. Re:Problems... by tp1024 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly those. Just read up on the Shaanxi Earthquake in 1556, when almost a million people died in such caves.

      But hey, it's energy efficient and it's not radioactive. Who cares about the people who die without any radioactivity involved?

    2. Re:Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't read the articles; are these the same caves that collapse every time that area gets a strong earthquake, causing a huge humanitarian crisis as all of the occupants are buried under the hill?

      What crisis? Excess humans (are there any other kind?) are wiped out by the natural forces of Gaia.

      All neat and clean.

      Remember - the Unabomber would approve.

    3. Re:Problems... by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, they are the same caves. I don't see this particular issue addressed in any of the stories. I think it's possible to engineer cave dwellings (even ones in dangerous soil like loess, mentioned in the article) to withstand earthquakes, but that is a dangerous oversight for the articles on underground dwellings to make, which might reflect a similar oversight by the people building the current generation of underground dwellings. Or it might just be the usual journalistic incompetence.

    4. Re:Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the cave rocks are themselves radioactive. The natural radiation could as well be higher than Chernobyl.

    5. Re:Problems... by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But that's natural radioactivity. That's the kind of radioactivity that doesn't cause cancer. (Don't ask.)

    6. Re:Problems... by operagost · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's free-range radiation. You'll just get organic cancer. In your organs.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't read the articles; are these the same caves that collapse every time that area gets a strong earthquake, causing a huge humanitarian crisis as all of the occupants are buried under the hill?

      Like they said, it's environmentally friendly.

  4. Not legal in the USA by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All the silly safety laws here will make cave dwelling illegal as there are no egress windows in every room and at least two exit doors.

    Because if the cave burns, you cant get out.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Not legal in the USA by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Except I've seen several cave houses for sale in places such as New Mexico and Arizona.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:Not legal in the USA by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Not in any city area, always way out beyond zoning and typically they are grandfathered. I.E. built before we started electing Low IQ morons to government positions.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Not legal in the USA by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      It's not unheard of in Europe though (Mostly in Espane)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:Not legal in the USA by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      begin sarcasm

      That's a bad thing? A cave fire provides food, reduces population, and frees up a unit for someone else that needs shelter. You see, your problem is that you're not thinking like an environmentalist.

      end sarcasm

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Not legal in the USA by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      You can build a cave dwelling that still meets those requirements.

    6. Re:Not legal in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe that is incorrect. For one thing, building codes are local, not federal. For another, I've personally seen at least one underground home without a window in every room right here in Illinois. But as that was 30 years ago and times can change, I also found this website of a company that builds underground homes in the US today: http://www.earthshelteredhousing.com.

    7. Re:Not legal in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, moron regulation. When will people learn?

      learn

    8. Re:Not legal in the USA by Americano · · Score: 1

      Indded - I live in a newfangled above-ground cave dwelling we call an "apartment building," that was built in the year of our lord 2007, and I have 2 rooms in my apartment that have no windows, and no egress other than out into the other rooms of the apartment: my bathroom, and an office.

      I rather like the fact that I have no windows in my home office - If I want sunlight, I take my laptop out into the living room area or onto the balcony; artificial lighting in the office means I don't have to worry about glare on my computer screen at various times of the day, as I used to have to worry about with my last apartment.

      And my neighbors thank me for not attempting to install big windows in my bathroom, as watching my hairy ass in the shower is probably about even with "drink a bottle of lye" on their list of things they want to do.

  5. Big deal by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have a cave at my place as well. It's got a beer fridge, wide-screen TV, and power tools. Belching and farting is not only permitted but encouraged.

    1. Re:Big deal by gtvr · · Score: 1

      "No women, either!!!"

    2. Re:Big deal by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Stay classy homie.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    3. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is obvious. Women don't belch, fart or snore, therefore they must bitch or they will explode.
      Those explosions would be a serious hazard to cave dwelling.

    4. Re:Big deal by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      I have but one question. Does farting in a cave echo?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Big deal by na1led · · Score: 1

      My Basement = Man Cave!

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    6. Re:Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you fart in a cave and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

  6. What is the difference by drainbramage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    between living in a cave and your parents basement?

    --
    No brain, no pain.
    1. Re:What is the difference by blackicye · · Score: 1

      between living in a cave and your parents basement?

      Cave has more efficient climate control.

    2. Re:What is the difference by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Independence and ownership.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:What is the difference by SpockLogic · · Score: 2

      between living in a cave and your parents basement?

      A cave is a better Hobitat.

    4. Re:What is the difference by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      between living in a cave and your parents basement?

      Your parents' basement comes with free utilities and a homestyle catering service upstairs ;-)

    5. Re:What is the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cavemen get all the women, basement dwellers get none.

    6. Re:What is the difference by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'd have a hard time getting my Cheetara poster to stay on a cave wall.

    7. Re:What is the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could stick it on with some of your special "cave dweller paste" ....

    8. Re:What is the difference by schlachter · · Score: 1

      we all want our man caves.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    9. Re:What is the difference by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Less internet access for porn.

      --
      That is all.
  7. In a hole in the ground... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort."

  8. Cue the straw men. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I expect, within a week, to find at least one person rambling that 'All the liberal ecocommies want us to go back to living in caves and mud huts.'

    1. Re:Cue the straw men. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, MSNBC reports that western capitalists' greed for profits are causing Chinese factory workers to live in dank caves.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Cue the straw men. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I often wonder why people, especially in places like Tornado alley don't just build the entire dwelling underground. Sure it would be a little more expensive, but it can't be more expensive then rebuilding the houses every time there's a tornado. Add to that the increased heating and cooling efficiencies, and it almost seems like a no brainer. Let some grass grow on top, and you have a much bigger yard too. There are some downsides, like less sunlight, but that could be fixed with modern lighting systems. I've always thought it would be nice to have a house that was underground rather than a house above ground.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Cue the straw men. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Trixxy Hobbitses!

    4. Re:Cue the straw men. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think it'd more more than a little more expensive - it'd probably cost at least twice as much, maybe more. You've also got the powerful societal pressure to conform, and it'd obviously be a Very Bad Idea if there is any possibility of flooding. Legal issues, too - fire codes require things like multible points of egrees, which is difficult when underground. Possible (Escape ladder), but difficult. I think it's mostly the social issue though... not many people want to be the local freak who lives in a hole, no matter how well-built and lavishly furnished that hole may be.

    5. Re:Cue the straw men. by goldspider · · Score: 1

      I imagine there will be plenty of people who read this and regard it as a "Good Idea". That's how a "movement" starts.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:Cue the straw men. by defnoz · · Score: 1

      I expect, within a week, to find at least one person rambling that 'All the liberal ecocommies want us to go back to living in caves and mud huts.'

      You've not read the comments on TFA then. Sensible move.

      Republitarian at 2:41 PM March 19, 2012
      Exactly how liberals would like us to live, shivering in caves, using no energy and no water, i.e., regressive.

      I also enjoyed:

      ericdb at 2:06 PM March 19, 2012
      And to think their communist society began on the "promise" to take care of the poor, now they have one of the highest poverty levels in the world, not including the cave dwellers.

      ...which conveniently misses out (a) that people have been living in houses like these for centuries, and (b) that China is not communist in any meaningful (at least economic) sense, and it's much closer to an unregulated rampant free market economy. Which is why it has very, very poor people and very, very rich people.

      (posting to remove accidental negative mod).

    7. Re:Cue the straw men. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I was about to say "if the shoe fits", but then they're shoeless.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Cue the straw men. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wait a week? I am sure if you do the right searches Google can find you such comments reaching back at least a decade or two.

    9. Re:Cue the straw men. by Americano · · Score: 1

      It's much closer to an uregulated rampant free market economy. Which is why it has very, very poor people and very, very rich people.

      As opposed to the glorious days when Chinese communists were actually communist, and EVERYBODY was very very poor?

      53% below the poverty line in 1980; about 8% in 2001. Or, using a different source, the poverty rate fell from 85% to 16% in that same time period.

      Income inequality has certainly gone up in China, but bear in mind that prior to the late-70's reforms where China started opening up their markets more, the number of people living in poverty was simply staggering, no matter which criteria you judge by. The move to an "unregulated rampant free market economy" has had a far greater net-positive impact than your throw-away comment about it producing "very very poor and very very rich" people suggests. China was - by either of the poverty criteria shown above - mostly, if not almost *entirely* full of "very very poor" people under Communist rule. Free market reforms have helped change that, increasing average income and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

  9. arable land by markhahn · · Score: 4, Informative

    why is it that arable land counts for so little in western (at least north american) societies? isn't it a bit of a shame we devote so much land to lawns, rather than something productive? yes, I know: the crops that could be grown are not worth the cost of maintaining them. but why is that? is food too cheap, or labor too expensive? is it a distortion caused by exchange rates?

    I wouldn't mind a part-cave house, especially since a cave would presumably be near some sort of elevation (hillside, escarpment). I think everyone values a bit of a view, some sunlit rooms, etc. but one-story houses on flat plots of land are pretty boring once they scale past a cottage.

    1. Re:arable land by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So much land is devoted to lawns because no matter where people go, they prefer to transform their surroundings to look like the savannas where humans first lived.

    2. Re:arable land by necro81 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      is food too cheap, or labor too expensive

      For many people, I think the calculus goes something like this for, say, growing tomatoes:

      Spend anything from $10-40 per plant in potting soil, pots, cages, seedlings, etc.
      Devote a couple hours of labor, per plant, over the entire growing season to coax them into being productive
      Be inundated with tomatoes for all of three weeks at the height of summer, at the same time when...
      Their grocery store sells tomatoes for $2/lb. all year 'round

      I personally don't take this view. I enjoy my garden, even the modest amount of labor it requires. It's productive enough to do better-than-breakeven on cost, especially when I amortize the upfront costs over many years. Plus, although I wouldn't boast that, say, my tomatoes are world-class, they are a damn sight better than what the grocery store offers. I don't eat much out-of-season, so having fresh tomatoes in January just seems silly.

    3. Re:arable land by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Because they have,
      1. Comparatively low population density.
      2. The best agricultural technology ever invented to squeeze all the food possible from that land.
      Far from being in food crisis, most of the western world has problems with overeating. They even throw energy away turning corn into beef just because it tastes good.

    4. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have an abundance of it as modern farming techniques have improved yields to the point where we simply don't need as in the past. Around here (midwest) when many farmers pass away their kids have no interest in farming so developers usually outbid other farmers and the land goes to other uses. The housing deflation put a damper on that for the time being, but it will happen again soon enough.

      If governments didn't artificially inflate farm incomes it'd be far worse.

    5. Re:arable land by ifrag · · Score: 1

      Plus, although I wouldn't boast that, say, my tomatoes are world-class, they are a damn sight better than what the grocery store offers.

      I thought this is why people grew their own in the first place. In my experience homegrown have a lot more flavor to them, store bought tomatoes taste bland in comparison after.

      Or I suppose like yourself, actually enjoying it. I'd be more outcome driven about it myself, the work involved might not be completely proportional to the perceived increase in quality.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    6. Re:arable land by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Why should an average Joe try to farm his yard for food he doesn't need and can't sell competitively with those that know how to farm and do so efficiently with multi-hundred thousand dollar combines?

      Besides, you pose a false dichotomy. The options aren't having farmed land or having a lawn. The lawn is a vast improvement on the dirt yards of the early 20th century, and on unkept woodland scrub before that, in terms of both carbon capturing ability and ambient temperature (dirt yards are hot).

      It makes more sense to put more people on smaller land (do away with yards altogether) for energy efficiency/cost reasons than to have millions of sub-acre semiproductive farms.

      But... who can argue with the American Dream?

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    7. Re:arable land by Inda · · Score: 1

      There are certain crops that make sense in a kitchen garden. Most are not economical, or require too many chemicals.

      I've just planted first early potatoes for two reasons:

      1) I'm able to crop them when they are small and tasty

      2) They are extremely expensive to buy early in the season. I do not grow main crop potatoes because they are cheap plus I have a common scab and blight problem.

      Tomatoes: Grow the small ones like Sweet Millions. You don't end up with a glut and they're small enough for finger food. I grow mine in hanging baskets. They taste lovely and look pretty.

      Of course, old techniques for preserving still work well today.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    8. Re:arable land by El+Torico · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My gardening experience is somewhat different -
      Spend anything from $10-40 per plant in potting soil, pots, cages, seedlings, etc.
      Devote a couple hours of labor, per plant, over the entire growing season to coax them into being productive.
      Step outside one day to see a deer enjoying the last of the tomatoes after devouring everything else in the garden.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    9. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Combines harvest grains, in other words, cow food and bread. the vast majority of vegetables and meat are touched by multiple sets of human hands and not an insignificant amount of money and energy are devoted to handling and transporting this food. With adequate knowledge and climate, it is an undeniable efficiency for a family to have a supplementary food plot. It is not hard to emulate commercial productivity at an urban scale

      What the hell are you smoking calling turf an improvement? Turf is a TERRIBLE land covering, especially compared to the native species we displace .. at least within the 1000 mi radius of my home in the midwest. It is inferior compared to native plants, which typically fill a more appropriate ecological role compared to an invasive species. Turf is a relatively POOR carbon sink compared to grass/sedge. Residential turf never aerates the trampled ground from residential construction, creating huge drainage/waste water/water shed issues (its the same as pavement for any mid-big rain > 7mm). And since its drought intolerant and shouldn't be grown in most of the places its planted we waste water and fertilizer to keep it pretty, which are also wasted because the ground is non-porous...

      In conclusion, please restrict yourslef to subjects you are more knowledgeable about :-)

    10. Re:arable land by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      It makes more sense to put more people on smaller land (do away with yards altogether) for energy efficiency/cost reasons than to have millions of sub-acre semiproductive farms.

      Along the same lines: Why give 100 people each tiny yards, when they can have nice apartments next to a large park instead? I think the New Urbanists have it right.

    11. Re:arable land by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      It's because of globalisation of food market, which gaves Western countries dangerously false sense of security about food resouces they have. It is not like goverment institutions aren't aware about this danger, I guess they know it allright, they just tend to overlook it.

      From other side, it gives something for farmers in my country (and frankly, most of Europe) to export. Still, it is heavily subsided. But it's not definitely very black and white - while middle men as definition is plague, lot of farmers have something to grow and export because of Western markets, so complex issue.

      And while lot of people like to trash such manifactured food, friend of mine who's excelent scientist in food industry says while all that stuff is nothing to be proud of (like all litle tricks they keep food fresh and not rotten), their dangers are definitely overplayed (you are still more guaranteed to die from sugar overtake over years than E category substances). But it's understandable, considering mystery un secrets clouding food industry.

      I'm down to bare essentials - plain water, buckwheat, plain yogurt and regular eating schedule. Tomatos and other greens twice a week. And I feeling more healthy than ever.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    12. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Far from being in food crisis, most of the western world has problems with overeating.

      While overeating is definitely a problem, one cannot ignore the fact that the food most of the poorer people here in the States is total crap that provides little beyond an overabundance of empty calories.

      It's far cheaper and much faster to hit the drive-thru after work than it is to cook a full meal with fresh ingredients. Obviously I'm going to get a bunch of anecdotal responses now about how that is all bullshit and poor people are just lazy, though. It's as inevitable as the tides.

    13. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot the deer and eat it.
      Circle of life.

    14. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could get away with using compost enriched soil (after all what do you do with the plants once they die?), replace pots with more efficent raised beds for about the same price and some manual labour, save your own seeds and just start them indoors.

    15. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is 'giving' anyone anything. People BUY it, and for the same reason people buy any luxury item. It's their choice.

      Arable land isn't at a premium, we can produce far more food than we need to, and people like their personal private garden space. That is their choice.

      The 'New Urbanists' don't have it 'right'. They have what they want, what they choose, and that is fine. And the suburbanite with a lawn has the same.

      It's always so easy for people to look down on luxuries that they don't personally value as wasteful.

    16. Re:arable land by necro81 · · Score: 1

      I thought this is why people grew their own in the first place. In my experience homegrown have a lot more flavor to them, store bought tomatoes taste bland in comparison after

      In my experience, most people simply don't give a damn. If it's red and shows up on a burger or in a salad, it's a tomato. This is only a recent innovation, a trained perception. This is good, because it means people can be deprogrammed and realize that the red slab on their burger at McDonald's bears as much resemblance to a real tomato as cardboard does to fresh bread.

    17. Re:arable land by icebrain · · Score: 1

      My gardening experience goes like this:

      Spend anything from $10-40 per plant in potting soil, pots, cages, seedlings, etc.

      Devote an hour or two of labor per plant during the first two or three months of the growing season to try and make the plants grow.

      Get one or two undersized tiny fruits/leaves/whatever the plant grows.

      Step outside one day and find all of the plants dead.

      Seriously, pretty much everything I try to grow ends up dying. I've killed basil. I've killed peppers. I've killed cilantro, onions, fig trees, apple trees, and pumpkins. The only thing I haven't killed is the grass, and that's probably just a matter of time.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    18. Re:arable land by operagost · · Score: 1

      "Give" people yards? I bought my property, and before that I rented apartments. Who is this person giving housing away? Am I paying for that?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:arable land by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Picking fresh off the vine and eating is one advantage, the other advantage, if you grow enough, is being able to can your own preserves. Much better than the store bought stuff. We did this with the fresh fruit from the local farmers market (Peaches and strawberries). With a little work, we had enough jam to last the whole winter. And it tastes way better than just about any store bought jam. Pumpkin, other squashes, tomatoes, and many other things can be easily canned or frozen, saving you a lot on your food bill, and giving you much tastier food as well.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    20. Re:arable land by digitalsolo · · Score: 2

      When life gives you deer that eat your garden, make venison brochettes for dinner.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    21. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with that, and why I hate currently living in an apartment (since housing is so goddamn expensive)... is that the world is full of assholes. I have to be dead quiet in my apartment because sound travels. Having ap arty? Better quiet down around 10:00pm. Can't play DDR or any other game that involves potentially banging on the ground. The park? You're just about guaranteed to run into assholes who refuse to respect the place (let their dog crap everywhere, don't clean up, take up inordinatly large amounts of room for their picnic, complain if people are loud, etc).

      I want my own, not-attached-to-anyone house and yard, so that I can avoid assholes. That is all.

    22. Re:arable land by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Spend anything from $10-40 per plant in potting soil, pots, cages, seedlings, etc.
      Devote a couple hours of labor, per plant, over the entire growing season to coax them into being productive
      Be inundated with tomatoes for all of three weeks at the height of summer, at the same time when...
      Their grocery store sells tomatoes for $2/lb. all year 'round

      That's possibly true in some states. One approach might be to select plants that grow naturally in the environment. I have all manner of spices that just seem to grow like weeds down here in Florida. Mint leaves, for example.. I planted one tiny plant once and then it ended up covering the entire flower planter...

      There's also things like aloe, scotchbonnet peppers. this hedge plant that bears a cherry-looking fruit (tastes somewhat like a cherry too, but a little more tart), scallions, and other edibles and spices. I don't ever tend them but they grow just fine.

    23. Re:arable land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be honest, I am looking forward to when society wakes up and starts mass-producing vertical hydroponics farms.
      Actually better yet, aquaponics farms since you equally get fish produce, which we REALLY need to start considering or else we will kill off large chunks of the food chain in the oceans. That'd be terrible, far worse than a large meteor / Tunguska event in a city.
      They are so elegant, natural and can produce a huge amount of produce in such a small area.
      Combined with food waste recycling being enforced so it doesn't end up in a landfill, it would considerably increase the amount of food we could produce as well as preventing the need for a lot of chemicals fertilization.
      Same goes with animal farming in general. And a large emphasis on composting and methane capture.
      Large vertical animal farms are entirely possible, but the initial cost to farmers are pretty high.

      Hell, might as well throw in large-scale insect farming as well. Only the west seems to be so turned off to insect-based foods, because "they are icky" or some other weird things.
      It is no more or less "icky" than animal farming. In fact, considering animals have a higher level of awareness as insects do, more so.
      Some Insects are highly nutritious and valuable as a food source. They don't even need to be served as is, they can be prepared in to pastes or whatever else it is needed for.

      One thing I have always wanted to see tested out is an experimental idea for a real life tree vertical tree farm. Not just one in Minecraft.
      It should be possible according to theory, I can't see why it wouldn't if it is fed nutrients like any other plants.
      It will still require a pretty big space, but should be doable.
      Only problem, more so with this, is the price to produce such a large, sturdy frame for holding all that dirt and trees. This would be more expensive than all of the above combined, most likely.

      Government help to produce such buildings would go a very long way. It'd open up so many new jobs positions
      And best of all, it would make food so much cheaper to produce in the long run.
      More money towards food health research, such as producing farmable strains of fruit and veg for these buildings would allow more exotic produce to be produced locally, which means less transport and destruction of very valuable landscapes. (which could also hopefully mean we could designate more areas as wild habitats to save so many of them from being wrecked by our ever-increasing demands)

      Underground housing would also be a good thing in general, even if, yet again, more expensive initially.
      Think underground war shelters, but on a scale more acceptable for prefab housing, all of the above built in to them, and tightly sealed so there'd be absolutely no chance of flooding.
      Large scale pipe systems built in a repeating pattern of +s over kilometres, geothermal pipes in the gaps between them for all that deliciously cheap energy
      They'd need to be monitored if they are in earthquake zones. While they should be built with strong materials, you know it would get built as cheaply as possible, then end up with Fukishima results, again.
      It would also need to be designed to replicate the surface as best as possible. God forbid if we foolishly design this to be completely sterile and end up producing entire cities of people with broken immune systems. *

      Of course, none of this will happen because governments around the world just want to find the best way to steal off each other, spend as little money as possible and fund parties to get wasted, or some other crap. Oh and shooting each other better than the other guys because they all have elitist mentalities worse than the worst kinds of elitists you have played against in any game.

      (non-essential reading, just some personal stuff I planned out and worked on, nothing to see here move along)
      * I actually designed a tube-vault half-in and half-out of a dream one day. Never did finish designing it, only started some of the housing

    24. Re:arable land by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      It's not that absolute. I used to live in a place where no one could give a fuck if your lawn was all mud or weeds growing 3 foot high. Then another place where the township called a 3rd party mower if your lawn was 3 inches above ideal cut and send you a $400 bill for it too.

      Lawns are primarily an American tick with English roots:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn#18th_and_19th_Century

      And one that will go out of fashion in more places and more I predict once oil gets too high (end of this decade).

    25. Re:arable land by Moses48 · · Score: 1

      We value it for lawns. That means games: soccer, swing sets, volleyball, etc, etc... We have enough urban sprawl that we can even have a garden if we so choose, but it is not a huge cost savings as produce prices drop when they are "in season" in any case. Adding extra land is not huge benefit really, except maybe in making a larger football field. But it is a huge loss of windows all around, especially in two story homes with large vaulted ceilings and huge windows.

    26. Re:arable land by steelfood · · Score: 1

      is food too cheap, or labor too expensive

      Yes. At least in the States, this was always the case. A lot of land for comparatively little people. That's why there's so much waste here.

      This doesn't apply to Europe so much. They're much denser, and things are not nearly as cheap. It's really only limited to the U.S. and Canada.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    27. Re:arable land by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution to your problems would be to grow something other than tomatoes as your main crop (tomatoes being lovely, but also being very seasonal and not all that versatile).

      Try growing staples like potatoes, onions, etc. They last longer once harvested, have more varied growing seasons, are less vulnerable to your average wildlife, and more versatile in terms of what you can use them for. I gather that they're also harder to screw up and kill.

      I say that last bit uncertainly, because I am an awful gardener who has never managed to keep a plant alive for more than a couple of months. So YMMV.

    28. Re:arable land by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      As a biochemist, I generally do not have major health concerns regarding what is going on in food chemistry these days. Stuff is indeed pretty safe. As someone who enjoys food, however, I posit that 99% of food chemistry is employed to sell crap to people and mask its crappiness. And that's why I don't usually eat food industry crap. My fridge is full with fresh produce, the occasional piece of free-range meat or poultry, I grow my own herbs and some vegetables on the limited space I have, and I cook some damn fine stuff that way. What exactly do I even need processed foods for?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  10. I bet they've never heard of the new Ipad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since they've been living in a cave

    1. Re:I bet they've never heard of the new Ipad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they have. They built it!

  11. Tatooine (Tunisia) by drumlight · · Score: 1

    I visited the caves in Tunisia that were used whilst filming Star Wars and they seemed ideal for the environment. Cool, private and comfortable would suit me just fine. Relocate it to Canada and shovelling snow would be an appalling prospect but a more appropriate underground dwelling still has plenty of advantages year round.

    1. Re:Tatooine (Tunisia) by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      and don't forget Coober Pedy mate!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  12. I hope they don't dig too greedily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Else they might have to deal with all sorts of megabeasts in the underworld.

    Never a day passes where I don't think back to those horrors. I'll miss you guys.

  13. What about radon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I bought my house, they warned me the radon was a bit high and I needed to perform radon remediation. THe problem was my sub-pump not being sealed so radon was leaking out of it and into my house.

    That's all well and good, but at the time my thought was wouldn't a cave be even more dangerous? If radon comes from the ground, wouldn't it leak out of the floor into the cave?

    Just curious.

  14. Earthen berms.... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Informative

    Earthen berms (Hobbit holes) were all the rage in the early 1970's, just after the OPEC crisis. By the late 1970's, lots of people discovered firsthand the problems with trapped moisture, lack of ventilation, lack of natural light, and lack of egress options.

    I think the soil and climate conditions in Shaanxi are relatively unique, so they might get away without the moisture problems.

    1. Re:Earthen berms.... by hey! · · Score: 2

      By the late 1970's, lots of people discovered firsthand the problems with trapped moisture, lack of ventilation, lack of natural light, and lack of egress options.

      That's a result of lacking engineering and architectural know-how. You get some guy who's never designed a house who suddenly gets the brainstorm that he's going to build himself a hobbit hole, or a geodesic dome, or a house made out of discarded glass bottles. The spirit of DIY was a very 1960s (roughly 1965-1975) thing: you don't have to rely on "the system", you could build your own house, grow your own food, weave your own cloth etc. DIY's the second coolest thing about the 60's (after to the conjunction of birth control pills and the rarity of VDs that couldn't be cured with penicillin).

      But of course the vast majority of these experiments were a disaster, but if you took the people who had the most success, who maybe put the extra effort in to figure out how to solve the problems of an earthen house, their results would be strikingly different than the dark, dingy holes in the ground (with ends of worms etc.). My brother lived next to a guy like that, an architect who made his career building "underground" houses. He designed his houses terraced into the south facing slope of natural hills. Inside you'd never know you were in an underground house.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Earthen berms.... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Definitely can be done, some of the better earth-berm buildings I have seen in Florida basically make an artificial hillside with a concrete wall, then the actual structure is set back from the wall 6-10 feet for air circulation and light, you still have the massive heat sump nearby, and blocking of the direct blazing sun, without getting much more damp and musty than a conventional building.

    3. Re:Earthen berms.... by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's a very arid region, the soil is porous and soaks up moisture, and is easy to dig into.

      So basically it is only useful because of local conditions. Kind of like wind power in that regard.

  15. Cave! by Hugundous · · Score: 2

    You're lucky to live in a cave! We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank.

    1. Re:Cave! by retroworks · · Score: 1

      We were evicted from our cardboard box. Had to go live in a hole in the ground.

      --
      Gently reply
    2. Re:Cave! by psergiu · · Score: 1

      You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    3. Re:Cave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big deal. My family was evicted from the time-space continuum. I spent 5 years of my childhood as the figment of some hobo's imagination.

  16. Almost not possible in the US by Bardwick · · Score: 1

    The permit process would dash any hopes. Habitability inspection.... Sanitation requirements.... In most places, electrical hookup to the grid is a legal requirement. Also, if childrens services found out, there goes your kids.

    1. Re:Almost not possible in the US by doston · · Score: 1

      That's all true and it has nothing to do with your safety or health, but a lot to do with keeping everyone part of "the system". That was well understood when the country was founded. Keep those mice on the wheel!!

    2. Re:Almost not possible in the US by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Right, because there's a huge secret government conspiracy, that goes down to the local level, and has existed for a couple hundred years....riiiight.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Almost not possible in the US by doston · · Score: 1

      Not a conspiracy, that's just how society was set up...it's well documented. Try living off of the land sometime; you can't and the reason being is you're compelled to work. You can't be literally enslaved, so you've got to be compelled, otherwise you may find another way. Creating wants isn't a "conspriacy theory", but it isn't something that's talked about on Oprah. Does that make it a conspiracy theory? No, just makes it something you're not aware of. Take Jamaica, for example. When business in Britain knew slavery was on the way out, business asked government how the hell they'd be able to operate there without slavery. Creating wants was openly discussed (I guess you could call it a conspriacy). So they'd create wants in the society, glamorize buying things and theoretically the people would volunteer to take jobs in order to have "things". It didn't work out too well becuase it was simple to live off of the land there and many people were content to do just that. So to fix that, the British goverment seized the land and removed the population by force, effectively forcing the people to live in their economic model and THAT worked. If you're trespassing, you can't live off the land. How is this any different than here? It's not. If you don't beleive it, then you just don't know how things operate. Hint, it's a little deeper than what you'll read about in the NYT. You're living in wage slavery (which was termed just a hundred years ago...in more honest times), but you probably don't even think about it. Doesn't mean wage slavery is a conspriacy theory. Try not showing up to your job tomorrow and see what happens. You are compelled to work, like it or not. I guess it's a conspiracy that's hundreds of years old. Youre right! ;-)

    4. Re:Almost not possible in the US by doston · · Score: 1

      20. On British capitalists' discussions of the need to "create wants" in Jamaica after the abolition of slavery in the 1830s, see for example, Thomas Holt, The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain, 1832-1938, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992, especially 44-73. This study notes that as abolition was being prepared in Jamaica, British Member of Parliament Rigby Watson argued on June 10, 1833 (p. 54): "To make them labour, and give them a taste for luxuries and comforts, they must be gradually taught to desire those objects which could be attained by human labour. There was a regular progress from the possession of necessaries to the desire of luxuries; and what once were luxuries, gradually came, among all classes and conditions of men, to be necessaries. This was the sort of progress the negroes had to go through, and this was the sort of education to which they ought to be subject in their period of probation [after emancipation]." Similarly, John Daughtrey remarked (p. 71): "Every step they take in this direction is a real improvement; artificial wants become in time real wants. The formation of such habits affords the best security for negro labour at the end of the apprenticeship." The British leaders also addressed the problem of the fertile land that would be available to the newly freed slaves (p. 73): Early in 1836, Lord Glenelg [the Colonial Secretary] forwarded to all the West Indian governors a dispatch addressing one of these policy problems. He began by noting that during slavery, labor could be compelled to be applied wherever the owner desired. Now, with the end of apprenticeship, the laborer would apply himself only to those tasks that promised personal benefit. Therefore, if the cultivation of sugar and coffee were to continue, "we must make it the immediate and apparent interest of the negro population to employ their labour in raising them." He was apprehensive about their ability to do this, repeating the now familiar maxim that given the demographic patterns of former slave colonies such as Jamaica -- "where there is land enough to yield an abundant subsistence to the whole population in return for slight labour" -- blacks would not work. . . . "Should things be left to their natural course, labour would not be attracted to the cultivation of exportable produce. . . ." Glenelg went on to prescribe the means by which the government would interdict these natural proclivities. It was essential that the ex-slaves be prevented from obtaining land.

    5. Re:Almost not possible in the US by doston · · Score: 1

      21. For other examples of capitalists' conscious discussions of the necessity of "creating wants," see for example, Aviva Chomsky, West Indian Workers and the United Fruit Company in Costa Rica, 1870-1940, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1996. An excerpt (pp. 56-59): [The United Fruit] company claimed in its propaganda that its role was to instill consumer values among its workers. . . . In 1929, Crowther, another United Fruit biographer, explicitly explained the importance of the spread of a consumer mentality as he waxed eloquent on the virtues of capitalism and bemoaned the immoral effects of a subsistence economy: "The mozos or working people [in Central America] have laboured only when forced to and that was not often, for the land would give them what little they needed." But this could be changed, he explained, by infusing these laborers with the desire for upward mobility. "The desire for goods, it may be remarked, is something that has to be cultivated. In the United States this desire has been cultivated. . . . American movies, radio, and especially magazines were everywhere, and "our advertising is slowly having the same effect as in the United States -- and it is reaching the mozos. For when a periodical is discarded, it is grabbed up, and its advertising pages turn up as wall paper in the thatched huts. I have seen the insides of huts completely covered with American magazine pages. . . . All of this is having its effect in awakening desires."

    6. Re:Almost not possible in the US by doston · · Score: 1

      So, it's not 'the illumnati' (sp?) or beast 666 or whatever, but conspracies (if you must use that word) do exist and have always existed. Groups of wealthy land owners, business interests and elite government do and always have gotten together to plan society. That's just how things operate. The phrase "conspriacy theory" is just a hackneyed term used to discourage institutional analysis....probably coined and popularized by the aforementioned forces. If you don't think that sort of thing happens, you're just a dupe who doesn't read history or have eyes to see.

    7. Re:Almost not possible in the US by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Your examples of the idea are all fine and dandy, except that it doesn't work unless you're in control, and you'd need be be in control everywhere, locally dictating building codes. The implication of your original post was that home inspections, sanitation requirements, and electrical hookups had "nothing to do with your safety or health". And this is where your argument fails, unless all of those who are in charge are part of the vast, cross party plot.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Almost not possible in the US by doston · · Score: 2

      Holds up fine because the side I look at it from has consistency and 'health and safety' has zero consistency. The side you're looking at it from (government caring about health and safety) is so incosistent as to be laughable. I could site example after example where the government happens to side with health and safety *when it lines up with business interest*, but I could also site example after example of the government siding with business when it actually harms 'health and safety'. So, the logical conclusion is that health and safety are never the prime interest, business interest is the prime motivation and if it happens to grant 'health and safety' that's nice, but if it doesn't, too fucking bad. Business rules, just like it always has.

  17. Radon gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if anyone has ever checked the level of radon gas in these caves?

    1. Re:Radon gas by trongey · · Score: 1

      I wonder if anyone has ever checked the level of radon gas in these caves?

      Yes.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  18. Why Would A House Require Energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have plenty of methods to make houses that don't require energy, and if they do to build them so the generate what they need..

  19. Strike the Earth! by Crasoose · · Score: 1

    I hope they are embarking with shallow metals because they don't seem to be digging very deep.

  20. Personal Time by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

    Do they sometimes set aside rooms for the husband to pursue his hobbies in and call it a man house?

  21. Lower than apartment building? by F69631 · · Score: 2

    I've lived all my life in apartment buildings (Second and fifth floor, not counting the ground floor) and were an earthquake to occur, I'm not at all certain that it's preferable over small-ish caves containing a couple of rooms... Naturally, that's not that important if they aren't in area prone to earthquakes.

    Hell, I'd love to live in a cave like that, provided that it'd have electricity and all.

    1. Re:Lower than apartment building? by wisty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Buildings are generally engineered to stay up in earthquakes. The worst earthquake *ever* was in Shaanxi, 1556. It killed over 800,000, because so many people were living in caves (which collapsed). It was estimated to be magnitude 8, about the same size as the 2008 Sichuan quake (which killed about 70,000 people, despite the higher population, and some buildings being badly made).

      With 30 million people living in caves, you don't need a huge proportion to collapse for it to be an unbelievably horrific disaster. It's happened before. It can happen again. And it's no longer the 1500s, when there weren't as many lives at risk, no-one had the knowledge or resources to mitigate against it, peasants were expect to die unnatural deaths anyway. A large quake near Manila might be worse (due to the density, potential for a stronger quake due to it being on a bigger fault, and tsunami potential) but it's it's one of the worst predictable (as in - it could happen, so people should be planning on what to do to prevent too many deaths) disasters that can occur in the world.

    2. Re:Lower than apartment building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why so negative? You're quite the buzzkill on this road to planetary salvation.

    3. Re:Lower than apartment building? by sixtyeight · · Score: 1

      I just had a similar discussion with Slashdot's "Tunneling Under London" story, in terms of what fortification was possible and whether it was enough. Perhaps if they can fortify tunnels that well, they could fortify mountain dwellings.

      Or just use the tunneling machine to build fortified tunnels that would make great, cheap, near-limitless low-income housing. If a thousand people are willing to live in the flooding sewers underneath Las Vegas, this would make for a much better alternative.

      --
      The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability
  22. Americans wont survive the zombie apocolypse by cod3r_ · · Score: 0

    But these guys will.. GG

  23. ...And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I like how the article makes out as if living in a cave is some sort of revolutionary idea.

    While it seems the Chinese have been doing it in much greater numbers for a great many more years, they aren't the only ones to know how much sense it can make.

    If you ever visit Australia and venture into the outback, there are a number of places where people live in caves, the most famous being Coober Pedy. The cave homes and even the hotel are very cozy in winter and very cool in summer and I found them to be quite charming in the couple of times I have been there.

    1. Re:...And? by b0bby · · Score: 2

      There are some really nice cave homes in France too:
      http://www.troglodyte.info/troglodyte_photos.html
      I've visited them & would happily live in one! Plus it would be cool to say you lived in a Troglodyte village...

    2. Re:...And? by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      In Spain there have been dwellings in caves for quite a time, the ones I think are most famous are in Guadix, Andalucia and in Granada but I found others in distint parts too. And while some (v.g. Ibiza) may be inhabited by more hippy minded people, the others have been used by "regular" people for centuries.

      Hardly news, and hardly chinese at all....

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  24. Better watch out for the creepers! by tenzig_112 · · Score: 2

    I can't be the only one who thought of Minecraft while reading that.

    1. Re:Better watch out for the creepers! by pjfontillas · · Score: 1

      Not just you, buddy. With my recent addiction to Minecraft before I even finished reading the summary I began thinking about how all of their building materials will actually be affected by gravity (not just sand and gravel).

      --
      Life. Is. Good.
    2. Re:Better watch out for the creepers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, I read the comments on this just to see if anyone had beat me to this. You win an internet, sir.

  25. Gives new meaning to the question: by fredrated · · Score: 0

    Do you live in a cave?

  26. I love the smell of Radon in the morning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are very good reasons we don't live in caves any more.

  27. I noticed this while travelling in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When travelling by rail, many of the hillsides had small cave entrances everywhere, i'm pretty sure it was not just in Shaanxi province, i kinda figured some people may be living in them, or they were root cellars for crop storage.

    Nice to see a photo of the inside of one.

  28. They are lucky to have a cave! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are lucky to be able to live in a cave. I had to live in the lake.

    http://youtu.be/WRxjqOcvxoE

  29. this will inevitably result in a goblin siege by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they are prepared....

  30. I grow stuff I can't get in stores cheap by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    And that are low-maintenance....

    Namely, fruit trees. Pick the right varieties and you don't even need to spray them.

    My yearly maintenance burden for them is, I'd say, below 8 hours including harvest--though part of that 8 hours is late-summer pruning to keep the trees SMALL.

    They also require far less water than grass, maybe by as much as a factor of 10.

    Best,

    --PM

  31. Junkyard dog syndrome? by netwarerip · · Score: 1

    'I've lived all my life in caves, and I can't imagine anything different.'"

    That's because you've lived all your life in caves.

  32. Problems: by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Radon

    Air quality (unless all the bathroom business and cooking is done outside).

    You better like the temperature inside, because you're certainly not burning anything to keep warm: carbon monoxide and low oxygen.

    But not a lot of noise complaints I bet.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Problems: by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Radon

      Radon comes from the decay of elements from granite. If the soil is not granitic there is less problem

      You better like the temperature inside, because you're certainly not burning anything to keep warm: carbon monoxide and low oxygen.

      In fact the main advantage is that the temperature naturally does not vary too much during the year, keeping your home hot in winter and cold in summer. Of course, to begin with, you would not start living in a cave in a region where caves inner temperature is not comfortable (at least related to the other available options).

      But not a lot of noise complaints I bet.

      Given that solids transmit sounds better than air, in fact that could be a real problem. The positive point is that if your neighbour sets his amps at the maximum power, reverberation in his cave will make it way more uncomfortable for him than for you, even if he likes the music.

      The main problems would be air flow and sunlight, but then again, for centuries most of the people spent less time indoors than they do now so it was then a less critical issue.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    2. Re:Problems: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problems would be air flow and sunlight, but then again, for centuries most of the people spent less time indoors than they do now so it was then a less critical issue.

      I live is a cave house in Andalucia and you get a suprising ammount of light especially on south facing caves like ours. Living rooms tend to be at the front of the cave as do rooms that need ventelation and water, such as kitchens and bathrooms. Bedrooms tend to be at the back of the cave so that they are nice and dark.

      As for ventilation it's a good idea to leave windows open to let the cave air but they also have chimneys. The air flow through our cave is very strong and we have had no issues with damp.

      It helps that it's very sunny with very little rain here of course.

  33. So Easy A (Chinese) Caveman Could Do It by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Queue obligatory GEICO commercial...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5JV0Fs_GE8

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  34. Meanwhile... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Millions in China Live in Energy Efficient Caves"

    Meanwhile, back in the US, millions of slashdot subscribers live in energy efficient basements.

  35. NOT NEWS by DSS11Q13 · · Score: 1

    Man has lived in energy efficient caves for thousands of years...

  36. Mineshaft Gap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We must not allow it happen" - Turgidson

  37. Setting a cave on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried setting fire to a cave once, it's a lot harder than it seems.

    1. Re:Setting a cave on fire by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Was the cave furnished, carpeted, and with electricity in every room? Gas stove in the corner?

      It turns out redbrick and mortar doesn't burn that well either, but there's still plenty of pesky house fires.

  38. Caves huh? Good idea! by excelsior_gr · · Score: 1

    I tried to build a castle once, but it fell into the swamp!

  39. Evolving into an underground race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's the Chinese that were the forerunners of the dwarven race! Who knew?

  40. Have your friends over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for a nice cosy Saturday night cave-in.

  41. If my house could last 465 years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a comment on safety. Alot of people seem to site the earthquake in Shaanxi (456 years ago) as a major reason why living in caves is not viable, and no doubt it affected alot of people (although in China, a city/town of 2/3 million people does not imply a large metropolitan centre as it does in North America). I wonder what the risk would be minus all the other possible natural disasters that may not afflict a cave-dweller (or to a lesser degree)? Not including fires and other emergencies that affect only a single person or family. Would you have to concern yourself with tornadoes (as in the praire-lands), tsunamis or flooding (near coastal areas), etc... What about those earthquakes (and their aftermath like tsunamis and fires) that occur in densly populated urban centres (as in the Sichuan province, or recent disasters like Haiti, Thailand, and Japan)? Of course, all those would still depend on where your cave is located. I think either a tonne of concete or 100 tonnes of rock would kill me regardless of where I lived if it fell on my head. I think it's more a question of how often a devastating disaster (the "big one" as we look for near the Pacific Rim) will occur, and to a lesser degree if my house can withstand it.

    1. Re:If my house could last 465 years. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      While they may destroy your house, you can typically evacuate ahead of a tornado, flood, hurricane, fire or even a tsunami and survive. If your house/cave collapses in a few seconds of an earthquake, however, you're dead.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  42. Coober Pedy, Australia by deek · · Score: 2

    Many dwellings in Coober Pedy are underground. Very practical, considering the temperatures it can reach outside. Much more efficient than using air conditioning to cope with the higher temperatures. Some of the dwelling interiors look very nice indeed! Yes, some do look like holes; I know, what did I expect. There's even an underground church and underground hotel. All in all, looks like a very pleasant way to live.

  43. No windows by jcfandino · · Score: 1

    How can a place without natural light be efficient?

  44. Example of a nice cave home in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It can actually be very nice if it's finished properly. I would love to live in something like this:

    http://inhabitat.com/gorgeous-modern-home-is-built-inside-a-cave/cavehome-ed05/

    All the comforts of a nice home with natural walls and ceiling insuring very little heat/AC is required. A missile silo might be nice, but there's no windows (save possibly a skylight) and it will cost a lot to make livable.

  45. China vs USA by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    Thousands In USA Live on the streets because greedy banks steal their homes.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)