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.'"

50 of 210 comments (clear)

  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 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...

    2. 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.
    3. 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! ;-)

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. Re:Finallly history repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    8. 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
  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 wisty · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. 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

    5. 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!

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.
    10. 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?

    11. 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."
  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 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.

    3. 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.)

    4. 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.
  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 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.
    2. 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. 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 DigiShaman · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  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 SpockLogic · · Score: 2

      between living in a cave and your parents basement?

      A cave is a better Hobitat.

  7. 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.'

  8. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. ...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...

  13. 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.

  14. 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
  15. 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.

  16. 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.