Long Term Purpose of Seasteading?
February 22, 2010 at 4:21 am #1197
Seasteading is something people are interested in because it might have commercial applications, it might offer the ideal society and freedom some people want to live in, it might be a limited solution to eco-crisis of the modern world etc. For me these are nothing but reasons for seasteading none of them are actually purpose, there is meaning to seasteading even if it isn’t possible in near future, there is meaning to it even if it fails to satisfy some people since it might not be a eco-friendly, free or proftiable in the start phase, this doesn’t mean people should give up. Humankind’s needs are increasing everyday, a single individual consumes much more and produces much more than they did in the past millenia, this is a fact and it will always continue like this. To create something means to destroy another in the process and humankinds creative/destructive power will only increase by time…
This universe is composed of limited matter, sooner or later world will be an insufficient source of material for humankind’s needs, we’ll start to take what we need from somewhere else or create what we need from what we don’t need, alchemy isn’t only a fantasy subject you know. Perhaps such solutions will have destructive effects on our surroundings, nature, planet or maybe on whole universe, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we shouln’t. Earth won’t be sustaining us always so we’ll start to take what we need from universe with force at some point, and when that time comes we should better know how to create sustainable artifical habitats for ourselves. I don’t get why people whine about possibilities and hurdles on the subject all the time, seasteading isn’t out there only to fill our pockets or to create your liberterian utopias or my authoritarian utopias. What is wrong in finding ways to create floating structures in the ocean, it is something we can’t do efficiently atm, that alone is a reason for seasteading to exist, if one reason fails there are many more reasons for seasteading to exist and contininue.
Please share your ideas about seasteading with me, what do you think seasteading is in the long term?February 22, 2010 at 7:37 am #9608
Space? That to me seems like the most obvious step. Alot of the tech being developed for seasteads in self-sustaining and/or ecosystem building. One night over a group of sci-fi geeks(Read: Friends) got together and discussed the possibility of creating a new planet by getting enough H20 comets to crash into a giant FeO3 rich asteroid. It’d hold more biomass and have more space than a terrestrial world…
I have to be clear though, this was after several drinks :p So for now it’s mostly just idle dreaming.
King Shannon of the Constitutional Monarchy of Logos.February 22, 2010 at 3:11 pm #9610
when the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in ’68, everyone believed it it was possible! In ’69 when Armstrong said “One small step for man, [static] one giant leap for mankind…” it electrified the world! I watched it live on a 16” black and white TV and I can remember it like it was yesterday! Then years passed and ‘reality’ set in… Life is good but reality sucks! When I die I intend to have some of my ashes sent into space ’cause that’s the only way I’ll ever get there unless the mother-ship returns and picks me up!lol:( Seasteading is a real good second choice, a fall back position. Commercial applications and making money are good, and even necessary but to what end? If THAT is the PURPOSE of seasteading, I wouldn’t want any part of it nor would I want any part of anyone who did! Money and the accumulation of ‘stuff’ is not evil, it’s just pointless! You die and you family sets rid of ‘your’ stuff and starts the whole process again… Seasteading need not be any more complicated than people working and living on the sea! Unlike Moon Basses or La-Grange point Space stations, Seasteads need not be fantasy, they can be any structure that is safe, floats, big enough to hold more than a couple of dozen people in relative comfort. Eventually, sure, mega-structures will eventually come but you can’t start at the top!February 22, 2010 at 3:19 pm #9611
Definately space. Not only will large-scale seasteading efforts help to refine the technological aspects of long-term space habitation (self-sustainability, energy production, etc) it will prepare us psychologically for that big move off our planet. Living on the water is actually harder than living in space…the environmental stresses are greater…so it will be great training.
As for your comet plan, you need a planet with some basic atmosphere and vestigual water resources for it to work. Impacting comets on an asteroid will just end up blasting the water vapor back into space. Plus, what you really want is for the comet impact to release all the permafrost on the planet, because it would take way too many comets if they were the sole source of water.
One of my favorite futurist writers, Marshall Savage, gave plenty of details on his plans for terraforming Mars by dropping a few comets onto the planet. It’s not as far-fetched as you would think.February 22, 2010 at 7:35 pm #9616
Ditto what everyone else said. To me the big thing is really colonization of the ocean, which would hopefully make for much more efficient use of the planet by our species.. I remember Patri saying at the conference that the Earth could support a trillion people if we all lived on the ocean, which at first seemed like an exaggeration (I won’t debate the exact number), but if you consider we’re utilizing only about 30% of the planet, and the 30% we’re using could be better utilized for other things (like agriculture), it’s not that far fetched. Of course, I do worry that it could also lead to the accelerated pollution/environmental destruction of the oceans, which would have a very large, bad impact on the global biosphere. Anyway… It also offers all the intrigue of colonizing another planet (the Moon or Mars), and will probably have a similar impact on the world, but its much more likely to happen in the next few years, not to menton cheaper and easier. I’d bet TSI would get a lot more attention if they were trying to launch ships to colonize the moon, but for some reason doing the same thing with a similarly inhospitable environment gets overlooked.
The more I’ve thought about the whole thing the more appealing the competitive government aspect has seemed. Initially that just seemed like an afterthought, but thinking about seasteading’s gotten me thinking more about social and political structures as a result, and now I’d be extremely disappointed to see that aspect of it fail. People would generally be better off with a wider range of societies to choose from, since a lot of us are obviously not particularly satisfied with the structures we live under, and we all want different things. Why should we be forced to compromise in a single system?May 14, 2010 at 11:44 pm #10164
of creating a new planet by getting enough H20 comets to crash into a giant FeO3 rich asteroid.
You get even more space by drilling a hole inside the iron asteroid, putting the iceballs inside, plugging the hole and moving closer to the sun until the whole thing melts to the core and blows up into a giant iron ballon full of steam. Spin for gravity, seed and move in.
I stole that. From Asimov I think.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at