SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paypal billionaire Peter Thiel...has teamed up with the grandson of libertarian icon Milton Friedman, Patri Friedman, to try and develop a “seastead,” or a permanent and autonomous dwelling at sea. Friedman formed the “Seasteading Institute” in 2008, and Thiel has donated more than a million dollars to fund its creation...
they claim a floating city could be just years away. The real trick is finding a proper location to build this twenty-first century Atlantis. Currently, they are attempting to find a host nation that will allow the floating city somewhat close to land, for the calm waters and ability to easily travel to and from the seastead.
In recent years there have been reports of similar efforts, like the Freedom Ship, a floating city designed to house 50,000 people, with a landing strip on top of the vessel.
Such concepts raise the questions, "Can these communities create new social structures when the subconscious societal norms we all grow up with have such a powerful influence on our expectations?" and "Is the ocean really the best place to site these communities, given how powerful, treacherous, and corrosive an environment the sea is?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:46AM
Nobody would have an ocean location as a first choice, but all the land on Earth has been claimed by existing governments. The only place on the surface out of their legal reach (in theory) is on the ocean.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:01AM
2D thinking. Even Jules Verne was more imaginative, about 145 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:32AM
I think you'll find ships cheaper and more reliable than flying cities, until working fusion and gen 2 emdrives at least.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:44AM
What about undersea habitats? Isn't this still 3D?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:53AM
Again, seasteads will be cheaper, more convenient, and safer than undersea habitats. Unless the relative cost gap shrinks, I don't know why anyone would choose to go undersea. The seastead offers autonomy over land settlements, an undersea habitat could offer the same but couldn't use solar, would be harder and more dangerous to travel to and from, would have the same problems of corrosion as boats, but harder to fix and maintain, would need more safety features, would need to be more self-sufficient (at a cost), and would cause claustrophobia (a big undersea habitat would be very expensive and harder to engineer). An open air park on a seastead would be a lot easier to do than the equivalent for an underwater habitat.
Face it, 3D sucks unless you lower the cost of electricity and materials to almost nothing.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 19 2015, @10:43AM
An undersea libertopia? Sounds familiar... [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:45AM
I actually wrote "on the surface" to exclude outer space, smart guy. Yes, the bottom of the ocean could be considered the surface of the Earth. But in common usage, "surface" means on land or on (not under) the ocean. I'm discussing practical and legal issues. Captain Nemo's submarine has all the technical problems of an equivalent surface vessel, plus some. And the legal issues remain.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday March 20 2015, @01:06AM
Space is a great idea. Libertarians should definitely go there. Along with the hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:08PM
Underground cities would occupy already-claimed territory.
Flying cities would still occupy airspace claimed by established governments, unless they were over the same international waters as the floating cities.
Undersea cities would have horrible commute times, what with the decompression and all, and again still have to be in international waters.
Orbital cities would require technology we don't yet have, and the commute would be extremely dangerous and expensive (though that would keep out the riff-raff - elites and their indentured servants only!)
Basically, getting off the surface doesn't actually change much.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gravis on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:20AM
actually that isnt true at all! right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states. a more ideal solution to these seasteads would be to take an existing island and expand it using the same methods as the earth uses to make islands: volcanos. we have all the basic technology to make it happen, we just need to find the right place to drill into the seabed to access magma that is a few miles below instead of hundreds of miles below. however, i think if we really applied ourselves, we could access it anywhere in the sea.
(Score: 2) by PapayaSF on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:38AM
Really? Do you have a cite for that? Because while some rich people have bought entire islands, AFAIK these have all been purely real estate transactions, and no one considerers them separate countries.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:19AM
right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states
Really? Do you have a cite for that?
you should read up on micronations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:23AM
You mean how they're a joke not recognized by any government?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @03:29AM
A seastead is potentially a bit less like a micronation. They only need autonomy, not to be recognized. If they can hang around in international waters or make an agreement with some nation, any nation, to stay offshore, it can be realized.
What would cause a nation to come and destroy the project? Drugs? Sex abuse? Gambling? Tax evasion?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:00PM
I'd think fear of contamination from a garbage scow full of vile plutocrats would be enough to want to scuttle it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:02PM
> What would cause a nation to come and destroy the project? Drugs? Sex abuse? Gambling? Tax evasion?
Money laundering.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:45PM
> right now you can buy entire islands that are sovereign nation-states
Well, the United States has already been bought, although I suppose the same business model could work elsewhere. Still not sure I'd want to live there.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Farkus888 on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:23AM
These floating cities never address one of their major issues. Blowing things up. I can't get many guns or explosives just because other people are scared. In a libertarian world new full auto weapons would be legal. On a boat not so much because they are always a threat due to confined spaces and lack of proper back stop. It is much easier to safely shoot things for fun in a rural area on land.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:30AM
Oh, Yes! It is, indeed!
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:55AM
Libertarians may like guns and explosives, but they also like contracts, and if the contract doesn't allow them to cling to their guns and bombs, they can choose not to sign up.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:09AM
Would the ocean provide an adequate back stop?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:37AM
A recent survey of dead sea animals was inconclusive.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 19 2015, @05:15PM
Seems like the ocean would provide a perfectly acceptable back stop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads [wikipedia.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @07:53AM
Look up Kahoolawe, close to the Hawaiian Islands. You, too, could make a fortune being a practice target for the US Navy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 19 2015, @04:16PM
Speaking of which, I'd bet you a billion dollars that these assholes would do everything they could to restrict my right to blow up their seastead with a nuke. What about my freedom?! These libertarians talk about "freedom this" and "freedom that" but they won't respect my freedom to blow them up?! Hypocrites I say!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday March 19 2015, @08:02PM
You're being deliberately stupid, of course. Libertarians support your right to have weapons, not to use them -- except in self defense. This concept -- violence only in self defense -- is fundamental to libertarian thinking. In fact, it is almost the entire philosophy in one sentence.
So I'm calling you on your deliberately slanted smear. Since you chose not to be honest in your debating, what were you actually trying to accomplish? And why? What are your real motives? Are you, perhaps, someone who benefits from the authoritarian state's propensity to steal the fruits of other people's labor?
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday March 19 2015, @02:27AM
And why is that? Why is all the land claimed by governments that maintain diplomatic relations with other nations that at least tenuously respect their borders while the sea is governed by international agreements which are in turn enforced by governments operating ports?
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday March 19 2015, @09:11AM
And why is that? Why is all the land claimed by governments that maintain diplomatic relations with other nations that at least tenuously respect their borders while the sea is governed by international agreements which are in turn enforced by governments operating ports?
Because of Hugo de Groot [wikipedia.org], a Dutch lawyer who escaped his government inside a box of books. That's his claim to fame, what I learned in school as a child.
Oh, he also co-invented international law, especially "The Freedom of the Seas" (1609) [wikipedia.org], but that was probably too difficult to explain to Dutch school children.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Spook brat on Thursday March 19 2015, @09:50PM
Why is all the land claimed by governments that maintain diplomatic relations with other nations that at least tenuously respect their borders. . .
Short answer? Because the local government has enough guns and guts to tell the people outside their borders to stay away.
. . . while the sea is governed by international agreements which are in turn enforced by governments operating ports?
Similar reasoning. The sea is big, and defending large areas of it is difficult. A floating city on the sea sounds like a fun idea, but it would be very vulnerable to air, surface, and undersea attack from foreign powers wanting to challenge the city's sovereignty and/or raiders wanting to come grab stuff from rich idealists.
My advice? If you want to try this add the cost of a surface fleet (including carrier group), some attack subs, and a net of sonar buoys to the startup costs.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday March 19 2015, @01:54PM
The reason for this is human nature. The absence of government creates numerous incentives to create one, if only a tribal/feudal/mafiaesque one run by those who can use their collective power to control those who have no organization protecting them.
As long as the seasteads keep their population under the triple digits, it's possible to imagine people sorting out things as a community, and pointing to it as a lack of need of a government. But once you can't know everyone "in town", these guys are going to be in for a shock.
And that's assuming they could even possibly set up a remotely sustainable food/energy/sanitation system on libertarian principles.