The Seasteading Institute

I took this survey, since it is a good ideea of getting feedback on how to make seasteading a reality, sooner. While reading your “strategy document” I came across this statement, I quote ” It’s also important to understand that TSI will not operate any actual seasteading communities on the ocean. Central to our vision is the idea of experimentation and competition among new governments and social systems; the power of this vision will be realized only when seasteaders are left to self-organize. Some of the first communities are likely to consist of employees living on a seastead being used to operate a business. Residential communities will create their own means of self-organization (in effect, fledgling governments). Our role is to support these communities however we can, as long as they operate with the consensual participation of their members and are not having an overtly negative impact on the seasteading movement as a whole. “

I do understand your point here, that TSI wants to be more like the “medium” thru which the seasteading “vibes” propagate towards the ultimate destination,…but do you really think they are separated? Can we really talk about seasteading if we dont get involved in all the aspects, including owning, building, operating? After all, at any point, the “medium” is the “vibe” and viceversa. Dont get me wrong, I agree that TSI dosent have the means for getting involved in the complicated financial and technical aspects of building a seastead. But a company formed for that purpose alone, will. For example, years ago, when Reality Sculptors was on, I put together Standard Marine a company designed to build and operate future seasteads. I end up doing something else in life for awhile,…But now, here we are. Surf’s up.The stakes are different, higher. Seasteading its around the corner. I truly belive that. So, at this point, wouldnt a venture between TSI and a company who can built be the next logical step? The subject here is A REALITY, SOONER. Wouldnt that small step of really building a prototype seastead be actually the big leap for seasteading at a global level, given the success and the media attention that TSI enjoyed so far? Wouldnt that maybe exponentially shorten the seasteading time frame or even catapult this concept into a different reality, given the actual global economic conditions, and the new politics of change sweeping the American landscape? I personally think it will. But I was always the perennial optimist. So was Murphy. Regards, O.

James -

I really like the Medical services boat idea. I can “see” that happening in the near future. I would even be excited to work with that kind of project in some IT related capacity.

Speaking of IT, maybe there should be some brainstorming about IT-related ideas, since it seems like half the people on this forum are programmers. I dimly remember hearing about an “outsourcing boat”, full of Indians, that allowed Silicon Valley companies to hire low-cost offshore programmers, but still meet with them frequently (since they were nearby). Maybe something like that? A big problem with ideas like aquaculture and renewable energy is that (I’m guessing) we don’t have too much in the way of human resources for those projects. But I bet that you could put together a kick-ass software outfit, just from the people on this forum.

I can definitely see a progression here. You start out with a boat full of doctors and a boat full of programmers, and build up from there – more ships, platforms, services, all moving along in an incremental fashion until eventually there’s a city on the water.

Dan – you are talking about Sea Code, which is a classic example of a project in this space. They made a website, got some press, and then never did anything.

http://www.sea-code.com/

I can see generating water and energy very easily. In terms of growing,…corn, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, onions, olives, parsley, apples, pears, oranges, …and chicken, cows, pork, lamb,…etc,..I dont think it feasible. We might need up to 3-4 acres /person to be totally self sufficient, which is highly unrealistic price wise. Would you want to be one of the guys making,…say, $500/month?

As I see it, there are 2-3 major issues to be addressed to make seasteading a reality:

1a) Economics; we’ll have to import quite a few goods from the terrestrials, so we have to provide services or products in return.

1b) Another related point is to minimize our dependence on land based resources by growing/harvesting our own food, generating our own energy, water etc.

2) A structure which satisfies the contradictory parameters of cost, stability, mobility etc.

Ideally these issues need to be addressed in parallel, tackling them in series will lengthen time requirements and increase the likelihood of failure.

I therefore propose that TSI buy/rent a cheap floating structure like a ship or a barge close to shore and hire a few engineering grads/experienced workers to live on it. These guys are paid a nominal sum, say 500$ per month, along with being provided food, energy etc. The cost of their food, energy, transportation needs is clearly accounted for. TSI then signs a contract with these proto-seasteaders to the effect that if they are able to start an onboard business, or devise means of growing/catching their own food, or generating their own energy, the money saved by these efforts will be paid to the proto-seasteaders. TSI and TSI forum visitors can pitch in with ideas, advice or a bit of startup capital.

This arrangement should be invaluable in addressing points 1a and 1b mentioned above. The proto-seasteaders have every incentive to be super-innovative in generating business ideas or food/energy generation, and the broader community can help out with ideas and advice.

This kind of set-up runs in parallel with attempts to design and build a family-size seastead, such that, once the family size stead is ready, the businesses and food/energy technologies and the accumulated experience of the proto-seasteaders can be immediately transposed onto the final structure and we can set sail right away instead of waiting for these isuues to be tackled separately.

Hmm… re: (1b), you are essentially proposing a subsidized research program around ways to improve the economic viability and political autonomy of seasteading by advancing technology which helps seasteads be self-sufficient.

I think that is valuable, but best fits into our strategy at a later stage. I see things like economic self-sustainability (your #1a) and proving the technology (your #2) as coming first, which are the areas directly targeted by our current proposals. Increasing self-sufficiency strikes me as an optimization to the economic equation, but probably not a make-or-break one, as cruise ships survive just fine at their current level of self-sufficiency.

I can see generating water and energy very easily. In terms of growing,…corn, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, onions, olives, parsley, apples, pears, oranges, …and chicken, cows, pork, lamb,…etc,..I dont think it feasible. We might need up to 3-4 acres /person to be totally self sufficient, which is highly unrealistic price wise. Would you want to be one of the guys making,…say, $500/month?

O, obviously we can’t grow all these ourselves. But if we have to import every one of the above goods(and then some) from hundreds of miles away, we’ll be in trouble. Surely aquaculture is a natural fit? Likewise, plenty of vegetables in my nearby supermarket are hydroponically grown, it makes sense to me to grow lettuce and tomatoes ourselves than importing them over huge distances.

Regarding the low pay, firstly, 500$ is an arbitrary number, it can be more or less. In addition, this income can be significantly boosted by setting up an successful oceanic business or by savings on food/power imports etc. Whatever money is earned/saved goes directly to the proto-seasteader. In fact, the contract can be set up such that the proto-seasteaders get 2x the amount they save/earn… The point here is to provide a setting similar to the real thing and hire clever people to work out ways to survive, so we don’t have to start from scratch once the real thing is ready.

Hmm… re: (1b), you are essentially proposing a subsidized research program around ways to improve the economic viability and political autonomy of seasteading by advancing technology which helps seasteads be self-sufficient.

I think that is valuable, but best fits into our strategy at a later stage. I see things like economic self-sustainability (your #1a) and proving the technology (your #2) as coming first, which are the areas directly targeted by our current proposals. Increasing self-sufficiency strikes me as an optimization to the economic equation, but probably not a make-or-break one, as cruise ships survive just fine at their current level of self-sufficiency.

James, I must disagree with your cruise ship example. Cruise ships have hundreds of paying passengers and an assured source of income and a major corporation behind them. In our case, our income will probably be erratic and low at least in the beginning. If we have to import basic staple foods, or petrol for power and mobility etc as a cruise ship does, over a distance of hundreds of miles on a regular basis, this may well sink our boat. I personally feel that local substitutes will not be optional.

Pastor_Jason, I totally agree. I split them into (a) and (b) because it is not likely that we’ll be able to make absolutely everything locally right away, for example satellite phones or computers, so we’ll have to have tradable goods/services (1a), to exchange in return for these goods. The rest is 1b. Anyway, what do you think of my proposal?

On a different note, any movement on the basesteading outpost? I’m very tempted to join, but my wife and daughter (born just 2 weeks ago!!!) will probably not agree for some time..

I posted a response on a new thread (accessible here) but it seem to be caught up in some sort of spam trap. Could someone please take a look?

In short, if livefreeortry is correct and there are 3 core problems for viable seastead:

1a) Economics; we’ll have to import quite a few goods from the terrestrials, so we have to provide services or products in return.

1b) Another related point is to minimize our dependence on land based resources by growing/harvesting our own food, generating our own energy, water etc.

2) A structure which satisfies the contradictory parameters of cost, stability, mobility etc.

then rather than attempt to solve all or several of them at once, we should take a lesson from the statup world and “Release Early, Release Often” by building “the simplest thing that could possibly work” and iterate on that. To me, it seems that simplest thing to further our goals would be a structure which concerns itself only with 2), and leaves the others for later. From my post:

So what represents the minimal problem? What’s the smallest thing that could possibly work?

I suggest a safe but small (not fit for the claustrophobic) multi-person single household, limited to relatively shallow waters and with the necessity of relatively frequent docking (say, weekly) due to limited storage and productive facilities on board. A single person vessel may be even simpler, and perhaps should be pursued first, but does not do much to explore the needs of social life and cohabitation on board, so I prefer multi-person. Structurally, the vessel would serve as a test bed for the most promising structure for future developments, which I would guess is the spar-style platform.

Operating costs would be either be funded through on-board software development (or some other lucrative relatively solitary task able to be carried out remotely), or perhaps funded to some extent by on-shore earnings. This represents the minimal ocean economy, requiring no off-shore business or social organization.

So the only purpose here, in “Seastead I” is testing this relatively new style of structure, presumably the spar, both for seaworthiness and habitability, and thus to direct future developments.

So that’s my inclination, and now I put it to you: what do you think?

Note that this approach does not discourage some of the other discussed efforts. For example, condos on a cruise ship is just such a “simplest thing” in that it elaborates on a working system in a single meaningful way.

So, my suggestion: we have many problems to solve, lets not get ahead of ourselves and increase the risk of failure by trying to solve too many problems, in too many new ways, within a single new project.