To which I would reply in puzzled surprise, “What nightmare existence?”
I had added one novelty, to be sure. I had the entire huge city of the future
built underground.
Perhaps that was what made it seem a nightmare existence, but there are
advantages to underground life, if you stop to think of it.
First, weather would no longer be important, since it is primarily a
phenomenon of the atmosphere. Rain, snow, and fog would not trouble the
underground world. Even temperature variations are limited to the open surface
and would not exist underground. Whether day or night, summer or winter,
temperatures in the underground city would remain equable and nearly constant.
In place of spending energy on heating and cooling, you would have to spend
energy on ventilation, to be sure, but I think that this would involve a large
net saving. Electrified transportation would be required to avoid the
pollution of the internal-combustion engine, but then walking (considering the
certainty of good weather) would become much more attractive and that, too,
would not only save energy, but would promote better health.
The only adverse environmental conditions that would affect the underground
world would be volcanoes, earthquakes, and meteoric impacts. However, we know
where volcanoes exist and where earthquakes are common and might avoid those
areas. And perhaps we will have a space patrol to destroy any meteoric objects
likely to bring them uncomfortably close.
Second, local time would no longer be important. On the surface, the tyranny
of day and night cannot be avoided, and when it is morning in one place, it is
noon in another, evening in still another and midnight in yet another. The
rhythm of human life is therefore out of phase. Underground, where artificial
light will determine the day, we can if we wish make a uniform time the planet
over. This would certainly simplify global cooperation and would eliminate jet
lag. (If a global day and global night turn out to have serious deficiencies,
any other system can be set up. The point is it will be our system and not one
forced on us by the accident of Earth’s rotation.)
Third, the ecological structure could be stabilized. Right now, with humanity
on the planetary surface, we encumber the Earth. Our enormous numbers take up
room, as do all the structures we build to house ourselves and our machines,
to make possible our transportation and communication, to offer ourselves rest
and recreation. All these things distort the wild, depriving many species of
plants and animals of their natural habitat—and sometimes, involuntarily,
favoring a few, such as rats and roaches.
If humanity and its structures are removed below ground —well below the level
of the natural world of the burrowing animals—Man would still occupy the
surface with his farms, his forestry, his observation towers, his air
terminals and so on, but the extent of that occupation would be enormously
decreased. Indeed, as one imagines the underground world becoming increasingly
elaborate, one can visualize much of the food supply eventually deriving from
soilless crops grown in artificially illuminated areas underground. The
Earth’s surface might be increasingly turned over to park and to wilderness,
maintained at ecological stability.
Nor would we be depriving ourselves of nature. Indeed, it would be closer. It
might seem that to withdraw underground is to withdraw from the natural world,
but would that be so? Would the withdrawal be more complete than it is now,
when so many people work in city buildings that are often windowless and
artificially conditioned? Even where there are windows, what is the prospect
one views (if one bothers to), but sun, sky, and buildings to the horizon—
plus some limited greenery?
And to get away from the city now? To reach the real countryside? One must
travel horizontally for miles and miles, first across city pavements and then
across suburban sprawls. And the countryside we would be viewing would be
steadily retreating and steadily undergoing damage.