3 ms·

he actually wants to build a floating city where he can make his own rules Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically f

he actually wants to build a floating city where he can make his own rules Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? We have mechanisms for that on an individual level, as people can move from a city or job to a new city or job. We have mechanisms on the level of couples, like divorce. Perhaps most interestingly, we have mechanisms on the level of small to medium size organizations, in that one can start a new company. But right now there is no frontier, no way to peacefully start a new country. If you do believe that there are multiple stable equilibria for societal organization, then it should be a good thing if all the reds and the blues could just separate and self-govern rather than endlessly squabble. Apple is not Google, but both are successful; Singapore is not Sweden, but both are very nice countries. Things that are legal in one jurisdiction are illegal in another (e.g. porn is legal in Sweden but prostitution is not; it's the other way around in Singapore). Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? Or if the blue state residents could actually have a country in which stem cell research was legal without having to do backflips to accomodate religious objections? I ask only that you reconsider the theoretical merits of seasteading as a peaceful means for separation. If nothing else, it'll mean that all these guys go off and drown and stop trying to influence US elections :)

wam 14y ago
Hmm, yeah, I take your point. Finding ways to coexist peacefully is a big problem and I think you're absolutely right to point out that existing strategies for that haven't scaled beyond a certain level. I'm a bit skeptical of seasteading both because it has an upper boundary of utility (size of the habitable ocean) and it seems like a really potent market externality generator (the ocean is already overfished and hugely polluted). But my first objection is more theoretical than practical, and the second one is true of the status quo. Perhaps seasteading is a good hack to a planet crowded with irreconcilable ideologies. Increased mobility between states could mitigate some of the harms of moral arbitrage. (There's a great long now foundation talk by Nils Gilman that bears directly on the problems of social differences between existing geographically bounded states.) I can dig that.
Tichy 14y ago
Why should living on floating things make it easier to get along with each other, though? I am a bit too pessimistic about the human nature to have high hopes for such a project. Also, I watched "The Beach".
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? No. Marinating people in their own bullshit rarely helps. More often, it makes them get resentful and/or militant.
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? The trouble is that it isn't even a good mechanism. Let's suppose for sake of argument that major governments are prepared to recognize a new country's sovereignty and let them exist. Putting that country in the middle of the ocean is pointless. There are thousands of square miles of empty land in the American West and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country if doing so was actually desirable. Furthermore, even if it was a good mechanism, it isn't desirable for the same reason that secession isn't. Because sure, it would be nice to be able to do stem cell research or educate children about evolution without zealots objecting. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing, and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country that decides it has no objections to genetic engineering for the purpose of racial purity? Or that bans educating children about science and promotes militarism, leading to a future in which there are millions of young men with no prospects for gainful employment other than to start a war to try to gain resources through conquest? Or that, like the former Soviet Union, develops nuclear weapons (and other dangerous things) and then falls apart and fails to secure them, leaving the risk they end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations? You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. This is true even when they aren't part of your own country, but it's especially true when they are. "We'll leave and start our own country" is not a solution, it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you.
- ramanujan 14y ago
  and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country My understanding is that relatively few if any countries will sell federal land. The interesting thing about international waters is that by definition they don't belong to any country. You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. But it would arguably have been better for everyone (American and especially Iraqi) in terms of net deaths if we had ignored Saddam Hussein in 2003. I'm not sold on the idea that need to fight with every country that has an idiot or insane leader. If they attack us, sure, but that's now a much smaller set. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing I guess the idea would be more that you would move from the country if it wasn't doing the right thing, in the same way you leave a neighborhood or a job or a little league group if you have evidence that things are really going in the wrong direction. Tongue in cheek: this does presume less of a role for patriotism in one's decisions, but if immigration is unpatriotic then most patriotic Americans are descended from unpatriotic people :) and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country... I may not understand why these issues relate to seasteading. Are you arguing that new countries are particularly likely to do such things, more so than old ones? For what it's worth, the way in which new countries have been created over the last few centuries has heavily enriched for founders who started and/or won wars. This would seem to be at least one argument in favor of the concept that seasteading founders would be less militant. it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you Most of our ancestors left their home countries to come to the US. I think you may be overstating the impact of their emigration on their home countries. Poland did not go supernova because millions of Poles emigrated to the US in search of a better life. The UK didn't burn down when the Puritans left for the US. No?

wam 14y ago

Hmm, yeah, I take your point. Finding ways to coexist peacefully is a big problem and I think you're absolutely right to point out that existing strategies for that haven't scaled beyond a certain level. I'm a bit skeptical of seasteading both because it has an upper boundary of utility (size of the habitable ocean) and it seems like a really potent market externality generator (the ocean is already overfished and hugely polluted). But my first objection is more theoretical than practical, and the second one is true of the status quo. Perhaps seasteading is a good hack to a planet crowded with irreconcilable ideologies. Increased mobility between states could mitigate some of the harms of moral arbitrage. (There's a great long now foundation talk by Nils Gilman that bears directly on the problems of social differences between existing geographically bounded states.) I can dig that.

Tichy 14y ago

Why should living on floating things make it easier to get along with each other, though? I am a bit too pessimistic about the human nature to have high hopes for such a project. Also, I watched "The Beach".

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

Similarly, wouldn't it be better if all the fundamentalists could have their own island and teach prayer in their own schools without trying to make my child read the Bible? No. Marinating people in their own bullshit rarely helps. More often, it makes them get resentful and/or militant.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

>Well, suppose just for the sake of argument that seasteading is technologically feasible (you might consider cruise ships a proof of concept). Wouldn't it be good if there was a mechanism for people who strongly and irreconcilably disagree to separate? The trouble is that it isn't even a good mechanism. Let's suppose for sake of argument that major governments are prepared to recognize a new country's sovereignty and let them exist. Putting that country in the middle of the ocean is pointless. There are thousands of square miles of empty land in the American West and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country if doing so was actually desirable. Furthermore, even if it was a good mechanism, it isn't desirable for the same reason that secession isn't. Because sure, it would be nice to be able to do stem cell research or educate children about evolution without zealots objecting. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing, and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country that decides it has no objections to genetic engineering for the purpose of racial purity? Or that bans educating children about science and promotes militarism, leading to a future in which there are millions of young men with no prospects for gainful employment other than to start a war to try to gain resources through conquest? Or that, like the former Soviet Union, develops nuclear weapons (and other dangerous things) and then falls apart and fails to secure them, leaving the risk they end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue nations? You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. This is true even when they aren't part of your own country, but it's especially true when they are. "We'll leave and start our own country" is not a solution, it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you.

ramanujan 14y ago
and other locations all over the world that could be sold to a new country My understanding is that relatively few if any countries will sell federal land. The interesting thing about international waters is that by definition they don't belong to any country. You can't just ignore idiots and insane leaders. You have to fight them and you have to win. But it would arguably have been better for everyone (American and especially Iraqi) in terms of net deaths if we had ignored Saddam Hussein in 2003. I'm not sold on the idea that need to fight with every country that has an idiot or insane leader. If they attack us, sure, but that's now a much smaller set. But you're assuming that you would end up in the country that Does The Right Thing I guess the idea would be more that you would move from the country if it wasn't doing the right thing, in the same way you leave a neighborhood or a job or a little league group if you have evidence that things are really going in the wrong direction. Tongue in cheek: this does presume less of a role for patriotism in one's decisions, but if immigration is unpatriotic then most patriotic Americans are descended from unpatriotic people :) and that the other countries will leave you alone. What about the country... I may not understand why these issues relate to seasteading. Are you arguing that new countries are particularly likely to do such things, more so than old ones? For what it's worth, the way in which new countries have been created over the last few centuries has heavily enriched for founders who started and/or won wars. This would seem to be at least one argument in favor of the concept that seasteading founders would be less militant. it's just running away and hoping the blast radius on the explosion you leave behind isn't large enough to hit you Most of our ancestors left their home countries to come to the US. I think you may be overstating the impact of their emigration on their home countries. Poland did not go supernova because millions of Poles emigrated to the US in search of a better life. The UK didn't burn down when the Puritans left for the US. No?