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




Matt's Vision

Home Forums Archive TSI Research Matt's Vision

This topic contains 6 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Matt Matt 3 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1386
    Profile photo of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    I joined this forum and community because it is dedicated to most of the things that I have been thinking, drawing and dreaming about for the last 15 years of my 26 year old life. I have a fascination for floating objects, namely ships, then floating cities since my parents can remember, longer than I can. I also joined because I have been moved by Patri’s writings more than by any other more formally recognized author. His essay on our Liberation from Our Genes, has put into words earlier than I have, most of what I really want to say here. This is roughly what I envision and would like feedback as I’m writing and drawing on the subject

    1) Inflection point in Human evolution resulting in Civilization change, where Ray Kurzweil, Ayn Rand, and Bucky Fuller find common ground:

    I want to create awareness of our Human Condition within the Realm of Nature. This is not to destroy the pride being Human arises, specially as a baby taking first vertical steps, but to profit from our seemingly unique ability to recognize ourselves in the mirror and in history, and within the context of Nature: We are Animals who have extremely recently (compared to the “standard” conscious thinking) taken the first steps of what we call civilization. Our unconscious dreams and nightmares take care of reminding us of how close we are to the ground, and how our identity relies on breaking apart from it, and “freeing” half our bodies. We stood up – we could not have forseen the consequences.

    Like a snail or a Coral Pollip who creates (seacreates ;) ) its own housing, changing the world around it to the point of (in the case of coral reefs) posing a greater danger to Explorers than Lions, we Humans also change our environment. But unlike other architectural species, we haven’t achieved a “final” form of artificial bodies (housing). By “final” I strictly mean the the evolution of the artificial part develops at the same pace as the evolution of the organism – neither is final at all, but unlike other species, Man changes our environment faster than our Genes change ourselves.

    As many authors, like the ones in the header, point out we are currently using a tiny fraction of our potential, be it our technological, spiritual/joy or engineering and resource management capabilities.

    The inflection point I’m talking about is that we are at the saturation point of the Globalization process that began 500 years ago, and also at the same saturation point of the sedentary/agricultural revolution that began 5000+ years ago and now is seeing its last remnants crying before its destruction in the last Nomadic society that can gain some prominence through its religion: Islam. Arabia (along with greater Siberia) were the last two populated expanses where Nomadism survived the longest through interaction with Sedentary Civilization.

    I’d like to point out that while I’m an optimist, I really don’t believe we can have our cake and eat it too, meaning that the society in the future will have as many disadvantages as it will bring advantages. When a saturation point like this happened in the past, some peoples prevailed over others; that being the price of the first slow globalization process, the Great Human Migrations. But proving Humans are not homogeneous but creative creatures with Free Will, we find incredible exception in History: When the Natives from what is now Southern China and Formosa were losing the fight for their existence to the people who now populate China; the “Natives” didn’t just integrated or died as everywhere else in the World, but went to the open sea, then to the open Ocean and now constitute the Austronesian people, spanning from Madagascar to Hawaii, and occupying (as a linguistic group) all stratas in society from the highest (as in Indonesia, Malaysia), mixed (as in Madagascar or the Philippines) and naturally also the lowest, when defeated by Western or Chinese peoples (Hawaii, New Zealand, Taiwan).

    I am not precicesly saying that the defeated should be the ones conquering the seas, but when we consider that the poorest people are the ones worst affected by semi-globalization (that is traditional governments dealing in the World scene), and that those same poorest people become wealthier fast only when given freedom and security (Hong Kong); then it should make sense that the people who would integrate (be exploited) or dissapear (no comment) would love to have the option to settle the high seas, no matter what the physical challenges. In that respect we can indeed make a comparisson between a migration of academic and factual Capitalists (intellectuals and under the table migrant laborers) and the Austronesian alternative 5000 years ago.

    2) Being Conservative:

    Continuation of existing projects, discriminating what’s “new” of Seasteading from traditional human interaction with the sea.

    If we intend to represent what could be a major shift in society, culture and energy management (as we are almost laying claim to the biggest solar collector at reach) we should be perceived as traditionally conservative as possible. This means that we might have to cede the position of the first seastead to a traditional corporation dealing with a tradionally nepotist country. For instance, The United States of America was the first independent country of the last human migration. But it began as a colony. Those 13 coastal colonies became the seed of -for a time- 50 independent but united states. Likewise, after the Revolution, the settlers of the Wild West, did so one way or another under the American Flag, and they didn’t fight incorporation much – exceptuating Deseret.

    In our time, we could profit from a traditional approach of already existing countries colonizing their EEZones and eventually break away. To what extent would this defeat the purpose is debatable; but during the same century a colony in North America became a strong Nation that produced a paradigm shift in history, and pirate cove in Northern Madagascar was founded “free” and then was lost in history. Lest we forget Sealand.

    Abstaining from Idealism, fearing the Utopia; realizing how modern Reality exceeds past expectations, being aware of current reality:

    Colonization of the seas already exist in the shipping, fishing and farming, cruise and offshore oil and gas industries. It even exists in the housing sector as attested by the communities in Sausalito, Vancouver, Residensea, and Amsterdam. The first effective large-scale historically-tested settlement of the open ocean also already exists in the form of the fluid, largely man-made, Geography of the Netherlands, by coincidence (!) one of the historically Freest societies in the World. There are some seagoing floating hotels. The Biggest one failed, but there’s a small diving barge in the Australian Barrier Reef that now offers overnight stay. Why are there so little of these services? To what point is Red Tape the stiffling factor?

    Explore the Cruising industry. Would a major Cruise-line be interested in either having a ship that doesn’t call on ports, but is services through other ships? Would it profit somehow from a platform outside an EEZ?

    3) On the structure of the new Civilization:

    This is the most highly debatable and in progress section of this post, and unlike the rest should not be taken as a statement but just as an idea, a vision.

    Seasteading is a collective fantasy that appeals to many, and specifically the Seasteading Institute has (sic) institutionalized the concept into a recognizable brand. This is creating awareness that the fantasy can become a reality and thus a large market niche of people willing to move to a seastead, and shop around for a nation, should such a product exist. The transformation of Oil platforms into hotels would prove very similar to the transition between the time when ocean passenger transport was an unendurable punishment and the Belle Èpoque Ocean Liners and utlimately cruises and yachting (ships that go nowhere). From a last resource necessity to a luxury.

    With this in mind, it would be possible for big corporations or conglomerates to bet on this niche and raise enough money, and join enough resources to “simply” build giant breakwaters and rent the protected waters inside like berths in a Marina. Rights (in the form of paid entitlements) would be assured as long as the tenent stays; eventually the possibility of purchasing citizenship (entering into a lasting contract) could arise. This could be seen as Corporations attaining Sovereign status, which as outrageous as it sounds, it’s still less “threatening” than a floating community of Libertarians. Think Walt Disney World, or the city of Irvine California, vs Hippie colonies. Of course this is almost purely rethoric.

    Competing Marinas would assure that they treat their customers right (principle of Seasteading), and different companies will offer different limitations to their customers in the same way Gated Communities do.

    In this context, the “Structure” I see for seasteading is of many companies, some private, some mixed, settling first the offshore waters of sovereig developing countries, and later as the market for this new kind of expat grows, of independent open ocean settlements.

    We must not be so proud as to believe we have achieved a “superior” state of Civilization. Dolphins and Orcas have been domesticated only in the last past century, and to a certain extent. Whale farming is promissing in Japan. We feel and sometimes are accused of having exploited nature to such an extreme that we tend to forget that we’re still a primitive animal forming new alliances with other animals and shaping just a small portion of the World around us : the emerged part. The fact that we fish (hunt) ocean animals more than we farm them proves that while we cluster in artificial dwellings, we still live in a mostly virgin, albeit submerged, planet which we must not fear or be guilty to conquer.

    It was a tumultuous time for our nation. The clear beverage craze gave us all a reason to live. The information superhighway showed the average person what some nerd thinks about Star Trek. And the domestication of the dog continued unabated.” Homer Simpson – it’s funny because it’s true.

    #12014
    Profile photo of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    as for the supposed migration of peoples, there used to be the continent of mu, where the polynesian people lived,

    they had strong influence in India, and are the south-east-asian, pacific islands, and american natives.

    Their island of Mu sank and the Andes formed.

    In terms of “profiting” on the ocean,

    instead can live in co-operation with the ocean.

    just as all biota, gather food, reproduce and maintain habitat.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12019
    Profile photo of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    elspru wrote:

    as for the supposed migration of peoples, there used to be the continent of mu, where the polynesian people lived,

    they had strong influence in India, and are the south-east-asian, pacific islands, and american natives.

    Their island of Mu sank and the Andes formed.”

    Thanks fro the input but ,lol, you serious? Aren’t you confusing geological eras? Polynesians are a very late sub-set of the Austronesian Peoples (which yes, influenced the Tamil section of Indian population) which one way or another, come from the South China Sea, most probably the Island of Formosa and the whole Cantonese coast. Would love to discuss this somewhere else- after you read Cavalli-Sforza.

    Supposed migration really? supposed? Why wouldn’t a tiny group of African Primates (our own species) try to expand, slowly(!?) and progressively, to the farthest corners of the World as possible like bacteria on a food-laced petri dish? After all besides our overgrown skulls and frontal lobes, the only other thing that differentiates us, anatomically, from other big mammals, is our ability to stand up right (that’s why we “like”, or perceived as ordered, 90 degreee angles in our caligraphy, buildings, cities, charts); to be able to run and perspire enough to endure longer distances while looking at the horizon and spotting opportunities.

    elspru wrote:

    In terms of “profiting” on the ocean, (???)

    instead can live in co-operation with the ocean. (????)

    just as all biota, gather food, reproduce and maintain (?) habitat. (!!!!)

    Many thanks for pointing out the above. I don’t understand the first two sentences. I love the third one, that’s the message I’m trying to convey here. That in the big picture we already (and rightfully) behave like the biota we are and interact with our environment in such a way. All organisms, all extropic things (from a prion to a volcano crater metal-breathing “thing” to a piece o SW, to a forest ravaging elephant) interact with their environment changing both it and themselves. That’s what extropy, and being alive, means, going agaisnt the second law, and creating order out of decay. That order however might only be perceivable to the interested species (but not always, the bird is happy that the elephant destroys the forest as this keeps the elephant alive and full of delicious flees to eat. Likewise, many wolves and jackals were rather happy not to worry about eating just once a week, and became dogs. We were happy to be able to let the dogs keep guard at night in exchange for some bones and offal and we very likely had our first night of full sleep in human history; probably allowing us to be more lucid and smart during the day. Any insommniac here can relate to that.. ehem.

    Humans, like elephants, but not as much as insects and micro-organisms, visibly change the environment. Some species decay as a result (bears, tigers, lions, most big cats) and some species thrive – AS A RESULT ´- (dogs, cows, pigs, rats, roaches, small or domestic cats).

    Just think that if it wasn’t for a bunch of microorganisms tremendously affecting their ocean environment millions of years ago – to the point of affecting salinity and acidity – allowed, or helped, for an atmosphere to be created and for the emerged land to become inhabitable. Those first Earthlings seemingly only inhabited the seas; but themselves “terraformed” or rendered apt for biotic colonization, the whole emerged land; something previously unthinkable even if there was someone at that time to think about it.

    Today I think that humans drastically changing the Earth (in so many confirmed visible ways, not to speak of hypothetical ones) will allow for the future colonization of parts of the space surrounding it by either Humans, but most likely but all the biota we’ll carry wtih us, or our descendants.

    #12026
    Profile photo of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    elspru wrote:

    as for the supposed migration of peoples, there used to be the continent of mu, where the polynesian people lived,

    they had strong influence in India, and are the south-east-asian, pacific islands, and american natives.

    Their island of Mu sank and the Andes formed.”

    Thanks fro the input but ,lol, you serious? Aren’t you confusing geological eras? Polynesians are a very late sub-set of the Austronesian Peoples (which yes, influenced the Tamil section of Indian population) which one way or another, come from the South China Sea, most probably the Island of Formosa and the whole Cantonese coast. Would love to discuss this somewhere else- after you read Cavalli-Sforza.

    [/quote]

    You might like your recent homo-sapien scientist,

    but I prefer to get historic info from star-beings that have been around since then.

    Thiaoouba Prophecies cover the basic history of the Earth and it’s human-lineages http://rune.galactic.to/thaoeng.html

    Supposed migration really? supposed? Why wouldn’t a tiny group of African Primates (our own species) try to expand, slowly(!?) and progressively, to the farthest corners of the World as possible like bacteria on a food-laced petri dish?

    Okay, yes migration does occur. I was just saying not necessarily in the order or by the time-line represented in the picture you gave me.

    After all besides our overgrown skulls and frontal lobes, the only other thing that differentiates us, anatomically, from other big mammals, is our ability to stand up right (that’s why we “like”, or perceived as ordered, 90 degreee angles in our caligraphy, buildings, cities, charts); to be able to run and perspire enough to endure longer distances while looking at the horizon and spotting opportunities.

    Actually due to various cataclysms our technologies have been wiped out repeatedly,

    and so from maluse our brains have shrunk significantly from our star-being past.

    Agreed since the industrial-revolution they have started growing again.

    Possibly with natural selection being allowed,

    with open-source tribes to backup our technologies,

    we may be able to regrow our brains to respectable star-being sizes.

    I’m not just implying, but also saying,

    that homo-sapiens have relatively small brains for a star-being,

    this is partly why we rely so heavily on technology, to make up for that lack.

    i.e. some larger-brained species might simply have a telepathic internet with crystaline backups.

    elspru wrote:

    In terms of “profiting” on the ocean, (???)

    you were saying something about profit in relation to the ocean, which is sickening.

    There are lots of people “profiting” on the ocean, by taking and taking, and throwing much of it away.

    instead can live in co-operation with the ocean. (????)

    So harvesting only as much as we require,

    giving back to the ocean with composting or introducing beneficial species.

    We were happy to be able to let the dogs keep guard at night in exchange for some bones and offal and we very likely had our first night of full sleep in human history; probably allowing us to be more lucid and smart during the day. Any insommniac here can relate to that.. ehem.

    *shrugs* I’m pretty sure they were used more for hunting that guarding at first.

    when you’re out in the wild, can do whatever you want really,

    the only major (or as ellmer says Mayor) threat to a human, is other humans.

    Humans, like elephants, but not as much as insects and micro-organisms, visibly change the environment. Some species decay as a result (bears, tigers, lions, most big cats) and some species thrive – AS A RESULT ´- (dogs, cows, pigs, rats, roaches, small or domestic cats).

    certainly once we get back to living tribally, we can have much more diversity again.

    Just think that if it wasn’t for a bunch of microorganisms tremendously affecting their ocean environment millions of years ago – to the point of affecting salinity and acidity – allowed, or helped, for an atmosphere to be created and for the emerged land to become inhabitable. Those first Earthlings seemingly only inhabited the seas; but themselves “terraformed” or rendered apt for biotic colonization, the whole emerged land; something previously unthinkable even if there was someone at that time to think about it.

    Actually there was a star-being alliance that moved this planet into position, helped terraform and introduce new species.

    Today I think that humans drastically changing the Earth (in so many confirmed visible ways, not to speak of hypothetical ones) will allow for the future colonization of parts of the space surrounding it by either Humans, but most likely but all the biota we’ll carry wtih us, or our descendants.

    Ya, wake up!

    Space is already colonized,

    there are lots of biologicals on moon (orions), mars (reptilians), floating in space (grays)..

    There is a huge base of mamalians somewhere near Saturn.

    Really I think the only niche we can really go with,

    is by making technological-host-bodies and replicating communities,

    since then can live and flourish in more extreme environments than mere-biology allows.

    We can incarnate in robot-host-bodies of-course, especially with soul-seats in the body.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12028
    Profile photo of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    I believe I can find common ground even with someone as superior to me as a star-being. I’m just an ape who wishes climbing trees didn’t give him so many rashes and allergies. (I want to design a plushy piesce of hypo-allergenic furniture shaped like a tree, for kids and adults, and for the monkey inside all of us!)

    For instance when the Star Being says that it advocates for sustainable development and denounces by-catch, pollution, etc, I completely agree, but I see things in perspective: Just as back then when there were large tracts of unsettled land, nomad farmers would burn down a forest, exploit it, and move over, it still happens, (or grazers to greener pastures) some with positive and some with clearly negative effects on the environment; I see that the same will and is indeed happening in the seas.

    At first we continue hunting (fishing), and using it as a World’s biggest and ultimate public navigable sewer. But humans have already began farming the seas and the open oceans (can’t see what you see so wrong about this very eco-minded companies) with great success. As oceans become privatized, or somehow territorialized, they cease to be that public pool that no one has a real interest in caring for.

    The best example of Ocean Territoriality (besides the Netherlands) is Japan. The Japanese Archipelago with its many easily enclosable bays has if not pioneered, at least perfected (productivity-wise) the now rather ancient technique of farming protected waters. These shallows are in some cases completely enclosed by nets of diverse porosity effectively showing how sea can be divided and exploited.. With some brains, technology and long-term thinking, exploited wisely.

    A recent example is how the Japanese want to solve the whale rights issue by just farming them inside their waters.

    Another example, one I found on this forum somewhere, is the case of Singapore’s scarce territorial waters being completely allotted to the fragile equilibrium of some natural reserves and high density areas such as shipping lanes and landfills.

    I’m very enthusiastic about the Pacific Garbage Gyre because If Seasteads could clean the ocan they would be giving something back to the rest of the humans, in exchange for the claim to the biggest sun collector at reach (aka, it would be a PR, or International Relations, bonus).

    I emphasize that I can find common ground in diversity because when Star-Being says:

    “So harvesting only as much as we require, giving back to the ocean with composting or introducing beneficial species.”

    I, the ape, answer: That’s exactly what I call profit and changing our environment 1) demand (harvest as much as we require) 2) Engineering the seas (composting, introducing beneficial species).

    But I believe that the pollution caused by humans is part of nature, and the solution, or continuation, will also be caused by humans which are part of nature.

    When red tide appears, fish die, it’s seasonal, and it goes, but it may deplete a bay, and who know, maybe that was the last pocket of a species. So many species have disappeared (or not made it) in the past before apes were around. Should we call the perfectly natural red tide pollution? Shouldn’t we just because it’s not a homo sapiens sapiens the one responsable? I think the more we see ourselves in the context of biota, the more audacious and justified we can be in saturating the whole Earth then the Universe with our Artificialization. As in the case of the dog, or the domestic (which is not domesticated at all, just symbiotic) cat it’s not always unfortunate.

    #12030
    Profile photo of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    By extension, mans’ structures, for mans’ purposes are a natural extension of man, the same way coral builds reefs for its’ purposes, termites and ants build mounds for their purposes, ad infinitum.

    To belabour and bemoan the ‘artificiality’ of mans’ structures, while admiring the ‘natural’ structures of lower animals is to deny that man is a part of nature. Some prefer the womb of the hive/city, to the open spaces, others find purpose in living, as scouts, in the edges of the unknown…

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #12032
    Profile photo of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    Thanks for the feedback, and excellent as this helps me clarify

    J.L. wrote:

    By extension, mans’ structures, for mans’ purposes are a natural extension of man, the same way coral builds reefs for its’ purposes, termites and ants build mounds for their purposes, ad infinitum.

    yes, that was what I was trying to say. it’s true also. the particularity of man, in this particular time of our development (last 10K years) is that we are developing more rapidly than our bodies – that’s the difference from a coral or an ant: both corals and ants, change their habitats pretty much at the same pace they change themselves. Although this could be a matter of error or bias from the observer.

    J.L. wrote:

    To belabour and bemoan the ‘artificiality’ of mans’ structures, while admiring the ‘natural’ structures of lower animals is to deny that man is a part of nature. Some prefer the womb of the hive/city, to the open spaces, others find purpose in living, as scouts, in the edges of the unknown…

    No….. to appreciate (like from a satelite picture) how man has changed the earth the way a coral has changed the seabed, is to further put man in the context of nature. correct me if you perceive some contradiction in what I’m saying (although the paradox is obviously there).

    J.L. wrote:

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    Yes I realize this is your signature, but it fits perfectly what I believe is my case for an organic (in this case ark vs titanic, vernacular) approach.

    :=)

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

The forum ‘TSI Research’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate