Re: Optimal location of world capital

Derek Lyons <fairwater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> mcv <mcvmcv@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>Hardcowded@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>> Let's ignore the existing international relations of economy and power
>>> and assume we get complete freedom to choose on the basis of location
>>> and population distribution. What city would be the best choice as
>>> capital of an imagined utopian world state where all nations are
equal?
>>
>>Depends on what criteria is most im****tant. Population density would
>>make western Europe an obvious choice; it's one of the most densely
>>populated areas of the world. On the other hand, China has more people,
>>and so does India. It wouldn't surprise me if the world capital would
>>end up somewhere in south-east Asia.
>>
>>Ofcourse there are other considerations: trans****t, for example. A big
>>sea ****t and a big air****t are probably a good idea. A sea ****t means
>>somewhere along the coast, so right between India and China (Tibet?)
>>is not a good option.
> 
> Why is a sea****t desireable?  Why do you ignore rail trans****t?

I didn't mean to ignore rail trans****t, but I think more cargo is
trans****ted by ****p than by train. Especially for long distances.

If you want rail trans****t, an island is probably not the best option,
but if trans****t is an issue at all, a sea ****t is certainly desirable.


mcv.
-- 
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real.                  -- Zachriel