Would you want to live in an ecumenopolis?

[Bigfoot3814]

But it would be miles of open wilderness, we just would have built it 60 floors higher than original!

You're suggesting I go on a nature walk off the edge of my roof?

 

[Loki130]

But it would be miles of open wilderness, we just would have built it 60 floors higher than original!

A vast forest with no one else for miles? Impossible to re-create in a packed city. Plus whatever attempt made to do so would be artificial and just not feel right.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Never!!!! No way, no how.

 

[Oruc]

don't know never lived in a high rise. I really don't like nature so I guess I would be ok.

 

[bhsup]

If ever there was a reason to not want to live in a city...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4IQQQ8JO2E

 

[innonimatu]

Such a planet would be hell. So I vote "no".

You know, each day I get the impression that our planet getting nearer to become that planet!

 

[aronnax]

There needs to be a balance between the two and I cannot imagine the consequences of bulldozing the Amazon

 

[The Tollan]

No. A substantial portion of a planet's natural environments (if the planet contains life or water or certain other types of life supporting and/or otherwise useful/interesting environs) should be left intact. Even if a planet had no native life its surface should not singularly be given to a city. Other uses can be made for a portion of the land. Parks and preserves would not be enough.

This would particularly be the case on a planet with large quantities of animal and plant life.

Cities do not require an entire planet to function so a planet-wide city should not happen. Cities are useful but should not destroy a proper balance.