Article topics on this blog become increasingly over-the-top every day. There’s just something about the ocean that makes people think on an epic scope. I’ve already detailed giant floating skyscrapers and free-floating mega cities. The only thing that could possibly make these designs more absurd is if they were built on the bottom of the ocean.
It’s awesome. That much hardly needs to be said. We’ve been imagining a world where the human race could conquer all climates, including moon bases and underwater research labs. So as crazy as this design might be, we want it to succeed. We would love it if this thing could actually be built. Who wouldn’t want to go visit a giant underwater bubble and have picnic beneath swimming fish? I know I’d add that to my bucket list.
Pauley boasts that the Sub Biosphere 2 design enables it to be completely self-sufficient, generating its own food, air, and power. Though, I have to wonder if that feature is included out of ambition or necessity. Sub Biosphere 2 will almost necessarily need to be self-sufficient because, well, the whole thing is underwater. Transporting supplies between the sphere and the surface would be expensive, time consuming, and costly.
That brings me to my major issue with this project. Pauley named the place Sub Biosphere 2. Sound familiar at all? It should, because the design was inspired by Biosphere 2, a self-sustaining biodome in Arizona. It might be neat to take the Biosphere 2 concept and implement it underwater, right? Well, it would be a good idea if not for the fact that Biosphere 2 was widely considered to be a failure. Does anybody else find it a bit unwise to take a failing concept and then retry it on the bottom of the ocean, where the costs and risks will be increased tenfold?