1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Eco-Terrorism a likely future for Seasteaders?

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Eco-Terrorism a likely future for Seasteaders?

This topic contains 24 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of J.L.-Frusha J.L.-Frusha 4 years ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #848
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Alright, not only does Seasteading work… but it does so on a fantastic level. It draws the best of human society as a diffused leadership and provides the most desperate with a chance for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The golden age dawns!

    Just one problem, with all these brilliant visionaries leaving established society the land based nations just fall deeper into their dirty holes of polution. Sure, we were content to ignore it now that we’re not breathing the air… but it’s getting bad and our very waters are suffering. What does a seasteader do?

    A nearby landbased nation is allowing radioactive water to be dumped constantly into a bay that flows right out into our ocean. Now we’ve found evidence that they are dumping leaky canisters of nuclear waste nearby us… on purpose! The clean-up effort will already require 5 of our Sities (Sea Cities) to move in and spend years working to complete the task. Plus, they’re STILL dumping…

    Question is… what’s a little sabotage amongst friends?

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #5211
    Profile photo of libertariandoc
    libertariandoc
    Participant

    Lets start wtih your basic premise:

    Why is it our responsibility?

    Secondly, here is what would happen in a situation as you have described: The radioactive materials (and it doesn’t matter if it’s liquid or not) would sink to the bottom of the bay (they are very, very heavy) it’s being dumped in, and either build up there (being a problem for the people dumping it) or more likely being covered with dirt and sludge and not going anywhere or doing much of anything.

    BTW, the Russians essentially do this with the reactors from their old submarines. The US dismantles the reactors and buries them in Idaho.

    At any rate, the dumping isn’t much of a threat to me, or even the environment beyond the bay. So, attacking a foreign country (and lets look at the ones that have the ability to dump nuclear waste: Any of them you REALLY want to piss off?) may not be a good idea, no matter what sort of terrorism flag you dress it in.

    #5213
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Indeed you might want to come up with a more worrysome scenario to accompany your point. If you dumped all the radioactive waste in the world in the ocean, the only reason anyone would ever notice is because of the sensitivity of our measuring instruments, not because of any dire effect.

    That said, the point you are trying to adress, of externalities and how to account for them, is a valid and important one that id love to discuss when i have the time.

    #5214
    Profile photo of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    The hope of seasteads is that when land based governments see that the “best and brightest” are leaving for other countries, they will change their governments to lure them back in. That was the original intent of the “strong state/weak federal government” model in the early USA. If the states could experiment and find out what works best, that could be copied by other states, and all would be better.

    But, for the sake of argument, if such a system didn’t develop, and the land based governments saw that their biggest detractors (people who care) are no longer annoying them so they are free to pollute away, because each city has a right to defend itself from attack, I think an assertively defensive posture could be in order. If I were consulted here, my recommendation would not include any preemptive strikes or incursions, as I wouldn’t want our forces delivered up into the hands of the enemy, but rather, we tighten our defenses, and work on ways of limiting the damage, along with finding ways of preventing further dumping… around the area we have control (12-200 nm).

    __________________________________________________

    There is no fate but what we make for ourselves. Each to his fate.

    #5217
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Move the seastead.

    #5223
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Alright, so nuclear waste wasn’t a good arguement. There’s got to be some pollutant that would be devastating to the oceans. Like those dead water areas that keep growing exponentially due to the run-off of fertilizers used by the land nations. This could possibly kill all marine life should it continue. That would effect our Seasteads no matter where they were moved.

    In the end, we only have the one planet. Even if we keep moving, others will keep screwing it up for us. Eventually someone will have to fight back to keep the planet from degrading into uninhabitability. The notion that the nations wouldn’t possibly let things go so far is moot. Just look around, it’s getting worse.

    I’m a pacifist at heart. Avoiding conflict is always the best answer. There is a point where each person decides to stand their ground. Assuming Seasteads are filled with the Pro-Active types (based on those here in TSI), I’d say we’re more likely to act than not. It concerns me that even at the early stages of this project I can see the potential for Eco-terrorism in it’s future.

    Perhaps strong ideals share the same propensity for violence that we see in religions across the world. Scary.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #5228
    Profile photo of Thorizan
    Thorizan
    Participant

    I’ve been on these forums for nearly a year, and this is the first indication I recall concerning eco-terrorism. Just as a sermon given is more for the pastor than the flock, I fear your concerns here are more based on what you might do, that the actions of the other main contributors to this site.

    Am I seriously missing something here? When have we discussed eco-terrorism before? Many here are libertarians, and using force to exert your will on someone else is abhorrent to them. Such statements will not fly very far here.

    #5231
    Profile photo of horton
    horton
    Participant

    Terrorism is almost always a response to political oppression. Very few people do it just for kicks, except maybe overbloated governments that have righteously sanctified certain types of violence.

    Some of these questions can’t be answered until trying it, though. Thorizan mentions an important experiment that will be taking place, i.e. how much bright and creative people feel they are oppressed by the current US/globalist system.

    There are dozens of other important questions that can be answered. One that I think about a lot is exactly how benevolent are people when they’re left alone and not harrassed by governments. I think people are basically good and oppressive governments bring out the worst in them. Left alone, and not threatened, people are benevolent. Just my view.

    #5235
    Profile photo of Eelco
    Eelco
    Participant

    Pastor_Jason wrote:

    Alright, so nuclear waste wasn’t a good arguement. There’s got to be some pollutant that would be devastating to the oceans. Like those dead water areas that keep growing exponentially due to the run-off of fertilizers used by the land nations. This could possibly kill all marine life should it continue. That would effect our Seasteads no matter where they were moved.

    Nah. They introduce some fluctuations in biological dynamics, certainly annoying if you are dependent on their regularity. But rather than killing all marine life, the opposite carries more truth. The ocean is very nutrient starved, and any nutrients will in the end increase biomass production.

    Tragedies of the commons are no imagined phenomena, but blowing them out of proportions, or making them up altogether, is the natural tendency of those seeking to justify leviathan.

    Again, it is in principle a valid concern you raise, if not THE open question we seasteaders should seek to formulate consistent asnwers to, but the subject is of such importance that i do not have time to do it justice at the moment.

    #5237
    Profile photo of dArtagnan
    dArtagnan
    Participant

    When I first read this post, my thought was that there was a concern with a PTB (Powers That Be) doing the dumping and then blaming on the Seastead, thus justifying (in the court of world opinion) military action against us. Obviously, a posthumous investigation and judicial proceedings would help prove our innocence – perhaps 50 years in the future. In the meantime, though, we have lost a valuable (and hopefully not only!) member of the seasteading community, and suffered the wrath of the international community, perhaps to the point where seasteads will have a harder time obtaining an appropriate flag of convenience, loss of funding, alienation of potential seasteaders, etc.

    The question, then, is – what should we do to help guard against this? Shouldn’t we then evaluate potential nearby states for their capability and likelihood of doing this eco-terrorism against us?

    #5240
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    it’s getting worse.

    I would say the opposite. Things are, in general, getting better. No thanks to governments though. Inventors, entrepreneurs and producers (which are all individual human beings acting primarily for their own profit) are making us all richer by the year, and giving us ever more choices so we have the possibility of using products and services that have minimum environmental impact, for instance (and afford to pay for them).

    And the scenario is somewhat unrealistic. Engaging in wide-spread environmental destruction is bad for business, both for governments and private entities. You will get killed in the market if you do this. Of course, occasionally someone will think that they will be able to do it without getting caught, but that is rather naive and therefore not very common. The market keeps people honest, on average.

    On terrorism, I am sure there is a risk of people getting very upset if some government would choose to attack and kill seasteaders for some arbitrary reason. But personally I have a hard time getting that worked up about attacks on the environment (leaving aside that it seems unrealistic). Not that I´m completely indifferent. I just think human beings are more important than the rest of nature.

    #5245
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Thorizan wrote:

    I’ve been on these forums for nearly a year, and this is the first indication I recall concerning eco-terrorism. Just as a sermon given is more for the pastor than the flock, I fear your concerns here are more based on what you might do, that the actions of the other main contributors to this site.

    Am I seriously missing something here? When have we discussed eco-terrorism before? Many here are libertarians, and using force to exert your will on someone else is abhorrent to them. Such statements will not fly very far here.

    Thorizan,

    Yes, my sermons usually apply directly to me, though I hope those hearing it would find it apply to a different area of their life. (I’d hate to think everyone had my same failings… what a world!)

    I am former U.S. Army and thus have been trained to exert my will on others. I assure you, I would do so only in the event that someone was doing harm to another or themselves in an attempt to reduce violence rather than excalate a bad situation. That is to say, I am as far away from an eco-terrorist as any.

    I bring up the question because after discussing Seasteading at length with a group of teen-agers, more than a few thought this may be a possible future with more than a little plausibility. My concerns were that any of the core group who were starting this movement had thought this could be a problem. Aside from issues with authority (many of which have valid reasons for having) and a desire for illicit drug use without consequence (no interest on my part on this one though), thus far I have not found many serious concerns.

    Someone mentioned my comment about dead water areas due to fertilizer run off not really being an issue. These chemicals do not bring beneficial nutrients to the sea but rather kill off the micro bacteria that oxygenates the water. The dead water areas have NO LIFE in them due to the lack of oxygen. This problem is a growing one and I take it seriously, but there is no single factory to target… thus no eco-terrorism even if someone wanted to take that route.

    I am glad that many here seem to be peaceful folks. We have to consider than some seasteaders may not be.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #5250
    Profile photo of horton
    horton
    Participant

    >>>I am glad that many here seem to be peaceful folks. We have to consider than some seasteaders may not be.< <<

    Jason, I appreciate your position, but to be honest if I were chosing to live on a seastead, I would choose one that didn’t have people with this attitude. I understand your army experience, but there are people who don’t value protection from non-existent or induced enemies if you know what I mean. I sense you’re conflicted with some mlitary ideas and more libertarian ideas that you’re experimenting with. Just my impression.

    Regarding nitrogen in the ocean, I think you’re right. It’s a bad thing to muck up the nitrogen balance in the ocean, at least in the short run which could mean decades. These dead zones you’re talking about come from an awful lot of fertilizer, though. I think fertilizer in large amounts is a controlled substance in most places, isn’t it, though? People like Tim McVeigh cooking up fertilizer bombs.

    #5255
    Profile photo of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    Fertilizer isn’t being purposefully dumped, it’s use allows for much chemical run-off which gets into the major water ways and when it ends up in the ocean it leaves a dead zone. Wiki has a decent entry about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology) Though fertilizer is a controlled substance, it’s “correct use” is what is causing the problem. Coastal areas may not be available should this trend continue.

    My concerns about eco-terrorism are not limited to a single seastead with some unbalanced people aboard. If just one seastead acts out in this fashion, all seasteads will suffer the ‘brand’ from it. We still see this in how many western countries look at people who practice Islam.

    Personally, my intent would be avoidance. Let the nations collapse in on themselves due to these poor decisions. I’m hoping that Seasteads will keep a low enough profile that we stay off the radar screen from most, if not all, world powers. A seastead operating eco-terrorist techniques would ruin that for me and the rest of you. That’s my concern.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #5429
    Profile photo of HTDC
    HTDC
    Participant

    Pastor_Jason wrote:
    A nearby landbased nation is allowing radioactive water to be dumped constantly into a bay that flows right out into our ocean. Now we’ve found evidence that they are dumping leaky canisters of nuclear waste nearby us… on purpose!

    Why would they be doing it? It’s either to incriminate and shut down your seasteads, or… well, there’s no “or” really. And if it wants to shut you down, cleanup, even if it was possible, wouldn’t help.

    Pastor_Jason wrote:
    The clean-up effort will already require 5 of our Sities (Sea Cities)

    One thing seasteading is certainly not going to ever run out of is new words. There still isn’t a single seastead out there, yet already more new words invented than in any other hobby or political ideology.

    Pastor_Jason wrote:
    to move in and spend years working to complete the task.

    I’m pretty sure you can’t clean it up. Not that you need to. And not that I see why would you move in rather than out.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate