November 17, 2009 at 6:51 pm #8693
I feel you are argueing semantics.
No one here disagrees that a boating community is not a “real/true” seastead.
But as a start it is more feasible than building a “steading” from scratch.
No one here disagrees that the money making/grubbing mentality present in so much of society today is something that we should try to avoid.
But as a means to an end, or at least to generate real interest in a larger market segment than currently, it is probably the best option.
No one here disagrees that it would be great if this was easy.
But it is not going to be easy, so banish even the hope… work with reality, with current technology and hope for better as progression is acheived.
If you do not help, you hinder.
If you do nothing but knock other’s ideas down, how can you ever expect gain support for your ideas.
Good planning, solid team work, and adaptability are needed to be a success in almost all large projects.
Thank youNovember 18, 2009 at 12:49 am #8695
at telling the rest of us what you think Seasteading isn’t, but you have yet to give a cohearant explanation of what you thnk seasteading IS!
I said before that this is just my definition of seasteading.wohl1917 wrote:
Asside from a self sustainaing atheist wonderland on a megalithic structure paid for by some fantastically rich person, I mean. I want you to think about it and put it into words that the rest of us can understand…
That’s about it. I doubt it will be a wonderland though. But everything else is pretty accurate. I hope to be the fantastically rich person, BTW.
But all jesting aside, I see seasteading as claiming a piece of the ocean, settling there permanently, and establishing a new nation. While I don’t expect the first structure to be a 10km wide city it should be a permanent structure of decent size…enough to fit a few hundred people comfortably. The plan is to design it in a modular format so it can be added to as time goes by and additional funds come in.
For there to be any chance at sovereignty it needs to be seen as something real and solid to the global community. A pack of boats doesn’t fit the bill in my opinion.jtg423 wrote:
If you do nothing but knock other’s ideas down, how can you ever expect gain support for your ideas.
I want to stress this again….if you can get a bunch of people together and lash your boats into a floating nomadic tribe wandering international waters then THAT IS AWESOME. I don’t intend any disrespect to anyone’s plans, and I will give you a hearty golf-clap if you can do it. But I don’t really see the utility in doing something like that…I don’t see how a bunch of boats lashed together can grow into a permanent new nation. If you want you and your children and your grandchildren to just float around smoking pot and drinking rum for the next few decades then that’s fine. I have grander plans.November 18, 2009 at 8:36 am #8701
Now that we’re all aware that it’s impossible to argue on the semantics of variables. Lets get back on topic hmm?
I forgot to point out the only thing stopping me from anchoring a platform 200NM outside someone else’s EEZ is the fact that there is currently no technology that will allow us to anchor in water that deep. The chosen location is 4.3km down, so until we find out how nylon or stainless steel mooring lines/chains hold up to the sub-zero temperatures at those depths, we’ll just sit here in territorial waters till we figure it out.
The other problem we’re encountering over here is whether it’s economical for us to export perishable products from our primary industries all the way out to buyers. It’s not the distance, most of what’s farmed is sold to China and Hong Kong, but the economics of it. If the population isn’t large enough, things like air/sea ports, trade routes, become prohibitively expensive. It’s not a major issue and one that’s easily solved but still something I’d like to have better numbers on before I make a move. Besides, agricultural export could be for local use until the economy becomes favorable enough to allow export.
Population is the other issue. Including myself, there are a grand total of 3 other people I know personally that are willing to pack up and leave. Michael and Katie are two and the other is my fianceé/Queen. And perhaps the 5 guard dogs on the farm. Oh! And the rats… one can ALWAYS depend on rats. I’ve several thoughts on increasing population, but it mostly involves taking in refugees/orphans. Not an ideal solution. Oh, and you can take this as a call for citizens. We charge a flat US$500/annum tax however so be warned Tax rate subject to change with 1 years notice.
Other than that, Logos is ready.
PS: I’m also part of a large community of about 12 other floating farms spaced approximately 25m apart. So… nothing’s stopping raft communities, we just make more money when we’re close to the buyers. :p
King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.November 18, 2009 at 2:14 pm #8702
Mr.X, I did take a second (long) look on Google Earth @ your operation down there. It is my understanding there you are located (anchored) less than 1/4 nm S-SSE of the Pulau Ubin jetty. It is also my understanding that that you are operating one or few of the open cage fish farms that I have seen there. If this is the case, let me ask you this:
- How “strong” are these structures? Are these docks concrete, plastic or wood?
The reason I am asking is because this might be your biggest problem. Forget about anchoring offshore for now….The question is if whatever you want to anchor 200nm offshore will be able to withstand the sea conditions (waves & wind) so far offshore. You will be looking @ 6′-15′ waves and 10-25 knot winds as your daily average.
As it looks for now, you are located in a “sweet hurricane hole”, well protected from the elements from almost all the directions, and the only “action” you see there is when is blowing from NE, maybe a bit choppy (since the depth looks shallow), but nothing worst than 4′-5′ waves. Pls correct me if I am wrong. 200nm offshore is a total different ball game.
OctavianNovember 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm #8711
Mr. Smith’s negativity should not bother anyone else. His narrow definition of what seasteading is, for him, is absolutely irrelevant to the rest of us.
I don’t know why he bothers to post so vociferously on it, all the while claiming that what others do is “awesome”. It’s a bit patronizing. Dude. if it’s not your bag, you don’t have to deny that it’s “seasteading” just say that you’re interested in something different and lay out your plan. Or ignore the conversation, which is what I often do. I’m commenting here because I’m currently re-evaluating a lot of leadership traits in myself and others for a university course I am taking, and I think people here might benefit from pointing this out. Maybe even you, Mr. Smith.
Don’t try to do other people’s thinking for them, in terms of what they are looking for. I won’t try to do your thinking for you. I’m not trying to be rude, or condescending, or nasty- please don’t take it that way. I’m simply pointing out that your input on these last few pages, over the last few months in this thread, are not at all productive. They have zero value to anyone else, and we should all be helping each other here. Rather than negating what people are doing, I try to make positive suggestions for how they can achieve their vision, whether it agrees with mine or not. I am willing to believe that you do have something of value to add. Why not try to focus on that?
Rather than arguing what IS or IS NOT seasteading, let’s recognize that it means different things to different people, and leave it at that. This forum is for practical(ish) ideas to make living on the ocean permanently feasible, for a variety of reasons, of which soveriegn independence is one, and simply escaping from humdrum ‘normality’ may be another.November 18, 2009 at 7:29 pm #8713
Actually the technology to anchor in deep water does exist and was pioneered by none other than Jacques Cousteau about 50 years ago! Check out the ‘Position Control’ thread…November 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm #8692
at telling the rest of us what you think Seasteading isn’t, but you have yet to give a coherent explanation of what you think seasteading IS! Aside from a self sustaining atheist wonderland on a megalithic structure paid for by some fantastically rich person, I mean. I want you to think about it and put it into words that the rest of us can understand…November 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm #8716
Mr. Smith’s negativity should not bother anyone else.
You can call it negativity. I call it “constructive criticism”. If I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings then I apologize.
Maybe you should apologize for those negative comments of yours on the “Biorock sea water mineral accretion technology” thread. You made some very negative comments about Anonymous’ ideas regarding mineral accretion…as well as some negative comments about Corona. I guess your negative comments should be completely irrelevant to the rest of us.
I’ve agreed with plenty of ideas on these forums…when I agree with them. When I don’t agree I feel just as free to point out what I believe are the cons to an idea.
I don’t think a floating community of lashed-together sailboats is a viable means towards seasteading for a variety of structural, psychological, marketing, and economic reasons. But I think it’s awesome that there is somebody out there trying to prove me wrong. He’s doing a lot more than I am, and even though I believe his efforts will not be fruitful I can give him tons of credit for trying. If you call that “patronizing” then fine.
All I wanted to say. I’ll let you guys get back on topic.November 19, 2009 at 10:28 pm #8720
I’ll just point out a difference between critiquing something on technical grounds, and criticizing something based on a subjective definition. And I think you know I’m (mostly) teasing about people’s personal beer choices.
I doubt anyone’s feelings have been irreparably damaged, and if they have, then they’re probably too delicate to make a life on the ocean anyway. I don’t think you’ve been unconscionably rude or anything. I’m simply making a point about being a positive leader/contributor, vs discouraging people.
Even the dismissive characterization of “lashed together sailboats” is a negative comment. It is a narrow view of what “boat community” might mean.
An appropriate place for discussion of what seasteading really is might be the philosophy thread. Not to be overly strict in keeping a topic from natural conversational wandering, but keeping the structure threads largely devoted to structural considerations is helpful for people who have limited time to devote to following this community.
There’s a lot of challenging going on in these fora, and some of that is good. We’re mostly people who are interested in rugged individualism, after all- so it’s only natural. And when it comes to objective reality of structural designs, it’s important. On the other hand I have to consciously refrain from criticizing every naively idealistic utopian or fascistic vision I see described here, because it’s neither a good use of my time, nor can I contribute towards helping anybody in those arenas, both because I find them some of them repugnant, and because I don’t see that it will work, so I can’t be positive and helpful. (Well, some of the ones with repugnant, fascist outcomes I may reserve the right to occasionally argue against for moral reasons.) But for people who simply have different priorities and or motivations than I do, there is simply no benefit to anyone in arguing that what they want to do is not valid. If someone wants to use the high seas to hide from taxes rather than reform their government, I can’t say that this isn’t seasteading. For people who simply want to see the world from the deck of a sailboat, I can’t say that this isn’t seasteading. For people who want to live on the ocean floor and eat synthetic mush, I can’t say this isn’t seasteading.
I may fail occasionally to live up to these ideals, and for that I apologize in advance.November 20, 2009 at 5:01 pm #8723
I forgot to point out the only thing stopping me from anchoring a platform 200NM outside someone else’s EEZ is the fact that there is currently no technology that will allow us to anchor in water that deep.
Population is the other issue. Including myself, there are a grand total of 3 other people I know personally that are willing to pack up and leave.
Have you considered anchoring in the contiguous zone? You will benefit from most of the freedoms of the true international waters, but being only 12 nm from the coast, shallower waters will make it easier to anchor. Also, a reasonably fast motorboat will be able to take you to land in 30 minutes, so even though you’re only 3 people you won’t be any more isolated than a lot of people living in rural areas today are. (This is what I will start experimenting with next year in the Baltic. If I remember correctly, 12 nm from the Danish coast it is only about 15-25 meters deep in the Baltic.)
EDIT: I am aware that you’re not allowed to anchor permanently in the contiguous zone, but in shallow waters it will be no problem to pull up the anchor and change the position once in a while.November 20, 2009 at 6:23 pm #8724
@Oceanopolis – Pardon the misunderstanding, but the fish farm is absolutely unsuitable for open ocean colonization. For that we’re going to use a modular hexatoon(Hexagonal HDPE pontoon) platform. So the structure will be made of HDPE, granite and concrete and that, we hope, will be able to survive the open ocean(Tests pending).
@Wohl1917 – Intriguing… Though I lack the engineering ability to fully grasp it. More reading is called for it seems.
@Lasse Birk Olessen – Actually that’s what we’re planning to do in about 5 years. Till then we’re going to test the structure and build up capital.
King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.
The forum ‘Structure Designs’ is closed to new topics and replies.
Posted on at