10 ms·
Floating city project
- nmrm2 11y agoDoes anyone else find it ironic that they have a big page about the failure of modern democracies to protect rights and how setting out to the sea can free us from tyrannical governments with run-away spending, followed by [1]: The Floating City Project combines principles of both seasteading and startup cities, by seeking to locate a floating city within the territorial waters of an existing nation. Historically, The Seasteading Institute has looked to international waters for the freedom... However, there are several reasons we are now seeking a host nation:... b) it will be easier for residents to travel to and from the seastead, as well as to acquire goods and services from existing supply chains; and c) a host nation will provide a place for a floating city within the existing international legal framework, with the associated protections and responsibilities. [1] http://www.seasteading.org/2015/04/podcast-is-seasteading-beyond-democracy-ask-frank-karsten-author/ http://www.seasteading.org/2015/04/podcast-is-seasteading-be...
- jdreaver 11y agoHow is this ironic? They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. It is indeed possible to criticize the welfare state, defense spending, and corrupt government while still using the legal system. It is a practical decision. Arguing against government services while still using them is not in any way hypocritical, precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes. For example, I am not a fan of social security and how it is managed, but you can be damn sure I will use it once I reach the required age, because I have already paid for it. I will be trying to get the money that was taken from me back. I think socialized medicine is a huge, clunky band-aid on top of a broken healthcare system already made worse by government intervention, but I won't stop going into hospitals if the US adopted a fully socialized healthcare system.
- devinhelton 11y agoIronic is the wrong word. But the whole point of building a city on a ship was to avoid any national law. If you want to partner with a real country, then might as well build the city on sparsely populated piece of land, and save on the expenses and inconveniences of ship based living. Charter cities and special economic zones seem like a promising idea to me, but seasteading always struck me as very silly.
- jdreaver 11y agoGreat point. I think they are trying to eventually become independent. I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure, where they start off inside the waters of a nation, and eventually move into international waters once they are established. Indeed, staying inside a nation's waters indefinitely would be counter to their stated goals. If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it.
- nmrm2 11y ago> I think of this as a kind of bootstrapping procedure Sure, but a lot of the reasons they list are essential. E.g., calmer waters near large bodies of land and therefore in sovereign water. Proximity to supply chains that lead to/from large land-based populations. Etc. > If these ships are movable, then one advantage over a land-based city is they could even change nations when they felt like it. notahacker's sister post is spot on.
- notahacker 11y agoAs far as I can see, the only notional advantage gained from being based just offshore is that they can theoretically leave, though that does seem to be (i) vastly underestimating the complications involved in sailing to whichever other country will have them and (ii) vastly overestimating the difficulty of selling up and leaving under a more regular land-based arrangement.
- cantankerous 11y agoThey could theoretically leave, but if they have serious unresolved disputes with their host country, it could very well prevent them from leaving by using force. What then?
- nmrm2 11y ago> They are piggybacking on the already-established international legal framework. Well, no. Being out on the open sea would put them within the international legal framework. They're piggybacking on some national legal framework, and a big part of the ideology behind the project is getting away from said national legal framework. That is ironic. > precisely because you have already paid for those services with taxes I somehow highly doubt that they'll get the concessions they want from a government to whom they've paid taxes for years.
- return0 11y agoIt is very ironic that they want the benefits of taking risks while avoiding risk. There are plenty of countries that are destroyed/impoverished yet still have signed international treaties, so perhaps it would serve better to do the experiment there.
- patcon 11y agoI think the idea with this is so that they will have the means to move once they have political, financial and ideological clout. They're aiming to incubate a proto-state within an existing state, so as not to rock the boat too much (cough) while building capacity.
- 88e282102ae2e5b 11y agoIt makes perfect sense, if you view the project as an escapist fantasy that will never actually be acted upon.
- zo1 11y agoWell, there is very little place for this supposed "fantasy" to take hold. Seeing as every single piece of land on this earth has been taken up by states that refuse to part with any of the precious land they've accumulated inside their borders.
- meepmorp 11y agoAll this really tells me is that market forces have determined that the state is the most efficient political structure. If it were otherwise, other political forms would've replaced them.
- alphapapa 11y agoFor what definition of efficiency? And what does a Hussein or a Castro care about efficiency?
- meepmorp 11y agoIf there were a system that was "better," in terms of the total way in which all of humanity measures "better," we'd be using that. That's the efficiency measure. The state arose judged against the harshest fitness measure known, the actual world.
- dropit_sphere 11y agoMaybe, but live by fitness, die by fitness. Conditions change constantly, changing the selection algorithm. If the state goes down tomorrow and chaos reigns, would it be reasonable to argue against trying to change the status quo because Mad Max had been selected? "They should not be denied nor forgotten, but neither should they be worshiped. The Earth is beautiful, and bright, and kindly, but that is not all. The Earth is also terrible, and dark, and cruel. The rabbit shrieks dying in the green meadows. The mountains clench their great hands full of hidden fire. There are sharks in the sea, and there is cruelty in men’s eyes. And where men worship these things and abase themselves before them, there evil breeds; there places are made in the world where darkness gathers, places given over wholly to the Ones whom we call Nameless, the ancient and holy Powers of the Earth before the Light, the powers of the dark, of ruin, of madness…"
- pbreit 11y agoSurely there must exist a host nation willing to offer up a few thousand acres to do the same type of thing?
- spiritplumber 11y agoAnother Bioshock sequel?
- zackmorris 11y agoMaybe the progressive analog of this is to bring the egalitarian concepts of a floating city to mainstream society.
- escherize 11y agoI think this is impossible. In democracies where everyone has a vote, the majority tends to vote in politicians that promise more 'social services'. That's a euphemism for using the government's monopoly of the use of to take money/time/effort from some groups and divert it into inefficient policies like the war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on poverty, etc. This is one reason that in the US's early history, only land owners were allowed to vote.
- pharke 11y agoI believe that part of the idea behind sea-steading is to extend the concept of freedom of association to one's residence, real-estate, and business, literally enabling you to pick up stakes and move at any time you feel your environment has grown hostile to your way of life. Granted this faces the same issues that any other utopian social movement has faced in the past (reaching critical mass, working out the kinks in a new legal, political, and economic system, avoiding tyranny etc.) but at least it has an escape hatch built in. If someone can figure out how to make these vessels as fool proof as a car (reasonably hard to ruin, owner operable, easily stocked with energy, affordable) they'll have no shortage of disgruntled citizens waiting to try one out.
- HarryHirsch 11y agoIf someone can figure out how to make these vessels as fool proof as a car (reasonably hard to ruin, owner operable, easily stocked with energy, affordable) they'll have no shortage of disgruntled citizens waiting to try one out. You mean... mobile homes. John Steinbeck, in Travels with Charley, was very positive about the motorhome's possibilities. But we know how that dream turned out.
- 11y ago
- skadamat 11y agoIt's ironic how the Bioshock games vaguely follow the Seasteading Institute's plans (Bioshock 1 with Rapture, underwater cities not quite floating islands and Bioshock infinite with floating cities : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZWirICmG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ZWirICmG8)
- tokai 11y agoIs it that ironic? It is a very obvious idea from a libertarian perspective. Both are essentially getting it from Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged.
- Ironchefpython 11y agoThe best part is, when Randies get what they actually want (http://galtsgulchchile.com/ http://galtsgulchchile.com/) they end up with what any rational person expects would happen.
- ceejayoz 11y agoFor anyone not familiar with the story, Daily Kos has a pretty good summary. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/18/1330554/-Galt-s-Gulch-Chile-The-Libertarian-Oasis http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/18/1330554/-Galt-s-Gul... TL;DR: Ponzi scheme, involving environmentally protected land, no water rights, wage theft, lawsuits.
- mizzao 11y agoCouldn't these floating cities get completely owned by tropical storms, hurricanes, etc? Due to the proximity to (warm) water, storms would be much worse than on land - and there would be nothing to affix large structures to.
- nmrm2 11y agoOh definitely. But TBF it's far easier to move what's essentially a giant fancy boat than it is to uproot a structure on land. When it comes to really massive (predictable) storms, I'd rather be living on an easily movable boat than a small island.
- stefantalpalaru 11y agoYes, but with the inevitable rise of the ocean level it's worth looking into solving the problems related to artificial islands.
- imaginenore 11y agoNot even a storm. On a windy day, let's say 30 knots, go to the ocean shore and see what the waves do. When the wind gets to 55 knots, a good category 10 storm, things get pretty mental. To build a structure that can withstand category 12 storm and above would require ridiculously good engineering. Water isn't wind, it's fucking heavy, and it hits like 100 trains. The costs to build something like that must be in the billions. Heck, modern cruise ships cost more than a billion dollars.
- abandonliberty 11y agoHey, while we're dreaming we may as well make them submersible. I wonder what's the more challenging engineering: a submersible city or one that can survive cat 12 storms.
- fia_bui 11y agoSubmersible accomodation isn't actually that hard or expensive: You don't have to go very deep to reduce wave action to next to nothing, only 10-20 meters, and you only need to submerge in heavy weather. There's one guy on the forums who built a couple of concrete teardrop hulls and used them as yachts. He said they were pretty comfortable.
- Animats 11y agoBlueseed[1] made a lot of noise about mooring a ship off shore of Half Moon Bay, near Silicon Valley, to house developers who couldn't get US visas. They had even fancier off-shore development pictures for later phases. They had the idea that developers could live on the ship and freely visit Silicon Valley. It was mostly a tax dodge. They discovered that 1) the county-owned small boat harbor at Half Moon Bay wasn't going to support them by building the on-shore facilities they needed for ferries, 2) Half Moon Bay isn't a US port of entry; anyone coming in from the boat would have to go through San Francisco, and 3) if people are going to work remotely, who needs a boat? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueseed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueseed
- calcsam 11y agoFormer Blueseed team member here. This is completely misleading. The reason we failed to get anywhere was that we couldn't find any viable path forward without raising $30M, and our team had neither (a) deep SV success & connections or (b) deep maritime experience and connections, so were unable to raise that money. Finding the right MVP for seasteading is both extremely difficult and absolutely necessary for success.
- Frondo 11y agoJust curious... Why did it seem at all realistic to execute a plan involving long-term boating stuff, without that maritime experience?
- ChuckMcM 11y agoNot part of the effort but I've found that lack of experience rarely seems to hold people back. Its a good thing in that they develop experience but it also means that when they show up asking for investment with no experience, it is unlikely to to be successful. Of course the trick to solving any huge problem you have no experience in solving is to line up a list of all the things you would have to know before you could be successful and knock them off the list. In this case I'd expect first on the list would be to get a ship pilot's license.
- 3327 11y agoHumans are yet to master building cities on land let alone a floating one. Dealing with the logistic and infrastructure of a floating city will most likely make it too costly. For small nations countries in need of land like Singapore sucking out sand from the ocean and refilling it will still probably be cheaper safer and more valuable due to the low maintanance filled land requires relative to a floating one.
- aaron695 11y ago> Humans are yet to master building cities on land let alone a floating one. Last I checked people living in cities have a better quality of live than those who don't? We have the longest life spans and are happier than we have ever been in part thanks to cities. > Dealing with the logistic and infrastructure of a floating city will most likely make it too costly. I think you're missing the whole point of seasteading. It's about freedom from government. Which will include tax avoidance, even if it's 10 times the cost of a normal city it's still viable if the rich want to move there.
- anigbrowl 11y agoThe problem is that hardly anyone is paying so much tax that it would be worth it to do this. any city worth living in is going to have government of its own, and some people living under that government's administration are going to end up feeling disenfranchised by it.
- Libbum 11y ago> any city worth living in is going to have government of its own, and some people living under that government's administration are going to end up feeling disenfranchised by it. Precisely the point of the detached nature of the planned houses. If there are thousands of different (yet most likely similar) governmental systems in place, then there are two options in this situation: 1. Up and leave, travel to a new city which fits better with your current modality. 2. If a large swath of the population is disenfranchised the government must act swiftly in order to keep the city running, otherwise its state will fail and everyone will detach and live elsewhere. We will no doubt see many more failed systems than long-standing ones, which is essentially part of the appeal in my opinion.
- skywhopper 11y agoSnow Crash is becoming truer every day.
- abandonliberty 11y agoI'm sorry, that book has been banned as it depicts sexual acts with minors. (I was given Snow Crash 10 years ago. It contained a note explaining that it would become an illegal novel if laws against fictional pedophilia were passed as proposed. They were.)
- frabrunelle 11y agoNice to see this here :-) I am the one who helped them migrate their old WordPress theme to Layers (http://www.layerswp.com http://www.layerswp.com). I haven't quite finished yet, but I am pretty close. Let me know if you have any feedback! btw, I also helped them migrate their forum from bbPress to Discourse: http://discuss.seasteading.org http://discuss.seasteading.org
- return0 11y agowhy dont they just buy a cruise ship and set sail already?
- anigbrowl 11y agoThis is an entirely reasonable question and shouldn't be downvoted. Cruise ships already have the infrastructure to handle populations of hundreds or thousands of of people, and in greater comfort than an ex-military ship. Also, they're relatively inexpensive. http://cruiseship.homestead.com/cruiseships.html http://cruiseship.homestead.com/cruiseships.html
- personjerry 11y agoPresumably because cruise ships aren't meant to provide any sort of sustainability, like farming, and requires fuel.
- anigbrowl 11y agoSure, but you have to start somewhere. If people can't deal with operating a cruise ship then I question their ability to create brand new floating islands and run them sustainably. Surely one could do some farming on a cruise ship (using a mix of decks and hydroponics) and likewise generate some energy on-board. Obviously not as attractive as running a small nuclear power plant but you probably can't buy a used nuclear aircraft carrier, so you're stuck with diesel in the short term.
- personjerry 11y agoI think with the same costs that go into a cruise ship one might implement a more optimized platform for farming.
- dagw 11y agoIf you're commissioning a new cruise ship perhaps. You can buy a few second hand cruise ships for a fraction of that cost.
- neonhomer 11y agoOn a non-serious note, this sounds like something the Bluth Company would build.
- pchristensen 11y agohttp://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/File:3x06_The_Ocean_Walker_(06).png http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/File:3x06_The_Ocea...
- logfromblammo 11y agoAs an anarchist myself, I know better than most that libertarians are all mostly full of hot air. While I don't necessarily think that seasteading is worthless as a concept, this project is pie in the sky. You don't build cities. They grow. And if you want to grow a floating city, you have to build floating homes. Build a seastead that supports just one person--one!--without logistical support from any landmass, and keep it afloat for a few years, and I might consider that you would one day be capable of a floating hamlet. But a whole city in 5 years? I call bullshit. Reichee Sowa did more with Spiral Island, and he couldn't even raise $15k on Kickstarter for life jackets and fire extinguishers.
- return0 11y agoI 'm starting to not take these people seriously. It seems to me like some libertarian billionaires do the equivalent of building dick-shaped towers in the arabian desert. Their keep planning and planning, but i never hear about how they are going to defend their cities from pirates or what will be the laws of the land.
- Tideflat 11y agoWhile there are significant problems, prirates are not one of the major problems, because unlike oil tankers and cargo ships, they have far more people and don't have a large cargo.