27 comments

[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 78.3 ms ] thread
Retarded about the platform. Why not use an island instead?
If you know of an easy supply of islands that aren't already claimed by some country, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.
Could build one - shallow water (that might be the hard bit), artificial base then a thick layer of imported rock/soil. :)
Shallow water would probably fall within another sovereign's nautical territory.
agreed. I find it interesting that in light of this, the photo on the home page clearly shows the platform within some country's water.
yes, probably. Though they do discuss the fact that current plans will put the building within the USA's territorial waters.
Only as an interim step. I'd see if the island of Nauru would lend them their sovereignty in exchange for their continued existence as sea levels rise. The island would only become a mooring point, but as long as they could build up just one spot above sea level, they'd still exist.
The current set of countries are protective of their oligopoly.

Generally, some nation will come and take it from you. Wolf Hilbertz developed an technique to electrically accrete limestone out of sea water and was using it to build a micronation, but it was almost certain that it would be seized by Mauritius when it broke surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saya_de_Malha_Bank#Artificial_i...

Retarded about the platform. Why not use an island instead?

Actually their plans are very well thought out. (And apparently you didn't read them before you decided to critique.)

Basing a platform on the principle of a Spar Buoy gives them immunity to just about any rogue wave or tidal wave nature, given enough clearance. Their larger designs could ride those out, while most buildings on an island would be toast.

Also, nature's not making new sovereign islands at a particularly useful rate.

Actually, Patri's primary reason for building free floating nations is because of an economic concept he calls "dynamic geography".

http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/new_pages/dynamic_geogra...

Basically, he postulates that the reason current governments suck is that there is a high barrier of entry into the industry and a high cost for consumers to switch providers. But a ruler of an archipelago of seasteads who passed an unpopular law might wake up to find all the residents have moved their platforms. Seasteading puts competitive pressure on the government industry and provides incentives to govern wisely.

Also see Patri's Econ Talk podcast:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/10/patri_friedman.html

Snow Crash or Diamond Age?
I always found Snow Crash's organic approach to this idea better.
"I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well." -- Bioshock
After reading their Intro page, I wholeheartedly agree. That's precisely what they're saying.
(comment deleted)
I dunno how you got that from our Intro page, we are quite explicit that seasteading is not about any one form of government but enabling more diversity and experimentation. Startup governments!
The philosophy of seasteading is explicitly not about pursuing any one vision of utopia, but building turnkey technology so that any group with a vision of a better society can go try it. The idea is not that we know what utopia is, but that by enabling a startup sector for government, by letting lots of different groups (Randists and others) try out their own visions of utopia, we will generate experimental evidence about what does and doesn't work. Instead of arguing about philosophy or dissing a proposed government because it resembles a videogame, we can compare real societies.

Patri Friedman, founder of seasteading

The last time this was tried, it was called "Aquariums: Project Uprising" or something equally ridiculous, and consumed several million dollars before it was revelealed to be (duh) a very well-hyped scam.
I've been following this one for years. They are very well thought out. (I learned about Vanadium Redox batteries from them, actually!) And no, I'm not involved with them. Just have them in my interesting bookmarks.
(comment deleted)
Until these designs include a moderate amount of self-sufficiency, they're not going to be cost-effective enough to get regular people living on them. This means you either have to aim for tourists or provide a paparazzi-free haven to celebrities.

Fishing would be mandatory for food and greenhouses would certainly be required, and preferably a well implemented vertical farming operation could do wonders. However, unless the scale is huge it would be difficult to become self-sufficient, especially if providing meat via cattle/pigs. Chickens are relatively easy to keep in higher densities and would likely provide a good supply of protein, providing you have the room to have the graze; incidentally, chickens are only generally destructive of grasses around their nest-site (where the chicken coop is) and are excellent pest controls. Without natural predators and with clipped wings, chickens could be allowed to forage in any open gardens. You'd be required to introduce worms, certain bugs and beetles, and bees anyway, so they'd provide supplementary nutrition to your chickens (free of cost and the chickens are a form of organic pesticide).

The economy would likely have to have a vertically integrated economy. Basically, you either need to seduce a whale (rich person/celebrity/etc) who'll spend money on services you're providing for a few benefits (major privacy), or you'll have to net tourists and take their money, or you'll have to have a huge export industry, likely through fishing. If you're choosing the latter, you might as well buy out or establish a fishing platform and work from there. It's been well established that oceanic platforms can act as their own man-made reef, encouraging fish growth in their area. Essentially, a well designed platform could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Self sufficient" is another way of saying "really poor". Outside of fantastic aquaculture opportunities and some limited gardens, Patri expects they will import food from states that have a competitive advantage in farming (such as having large tracks of arable land and plentiful labor). You should check out the Econ Talk podcast I linked to below if you're interested in stuff like this. The easy objections were thought of a few years ago.
I feel like this is just a bunch of nerds and kooks who want to meticulously plan their great utopia while living comfortably in their suburban homes. If they were serious, they'd already have a few boats lashed together and would be planning their spar and updating the site from some idyllic remote location in the sea.
Well, there was this: http://ephemerisle.org/

And the design of larger scale spar platforms is under way. The Seasteading Institute did raise a half million dollars from Peter Thiel, so they have some backing.

I found Bruce Sterlings - very sarcastic - comments regarding this enterprise very interesting (and funny): http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/2009/06/male-libertar...

I share his views insofar as this is internet ideology run amok without much consideration towards social equality and similar aspects.

Consider the idea of 'coaststeads': How is this different from simple tax evasion? The idea does not seem to have the coaststeaders sleep on their ships - they simple commute there in order to evade regulation.