Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but that is all it seems to be, the failure rate for these ventures is probably a million to one. Especially if resources are wasted in the beginning.
1. Forget reality TV shows, missile defense systems, condos, casinos and pretty much every other idea in the general chat area.
2. If you have money, do something with it. Hire a naval architect, commission a spar buoy, build something and you will learn more than you ever could hashing things out online.
3. Forget the floating commune, society, independent nation shtick. You need something that will provide money. Everything else can come later.
4. I know you are based in San Francisco, but the Pacific Ocean provides many more challenges to a seastead than say the Atlantic or Gulf Coast regions.
5. What does everyone need? Clean power and clean water. Both of these, if you could produce them, are viable commodities anywhere in the world.
What would I do (not that anyone really cares, and assuming the Pacific as the venue)?
Catch up with companies like Blue H (www.bluehgroup.com), Sway (http://sway.no/) and Statoil Hydro (www.statoilhydro.com), who are all producing floating wind turbines for power generation. Design one that rests on a tension leg platform that can be deployed in waters up to 10,000 feet, build it and test it. Test results look good. Get backers set up a an employee owned company of like minded people, manufacture and install a field of them (aprox. 50 would produce 250 MW of power) about 30 miles off the coast of Mendocino on the Mendecino ridge. Produce clean power. Take the profits and figure out how to make a floating desalination plant along the lines of the Ashkelon Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) Plant in Israel or there is another great example in Perth, AU. Both are on land but the idea can be converted to a floating, moveable design. Build it, supply clean water powered by the field of wind turbines (it doesn’t get more green than that). These two projects would more than pay for themselves providing you could overcome the technical hurdles. As this is happening you could create the floating city needed to service these two ventures. Woo hoo, Seasteading!!!! Market it around the world as the cure for fossil fuels and lack of water. Whole Seasteading cities with their own industrial base could appear off the coasts of every major continent. You want freedom and to answer to nobody, turn off the power and water and see if anybody f*cks with you.
eh
Ummm. Have you even read the book or looked at any of the plans?
Nope, haven't read the
Nope, haven't read the book, seen some 3d renderings, read most of the threads. Listened and read a couple of interviews with ?Patri Friedman? Hence the question... is this a joke? New housing for people? We seem to have a plethora of that. New modes of government? Been done and tried, numerous comunal living programs, etc. Success rate, close to nil.
I'm not trying to be rude, just very curious.
Where would I find the book?
Seems you haven't even
Seems you haven't even hovered over "Learn More" in the menu? http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/index.html
I apologize, I had read that, didn't realize it was "the" book.
My main questions still stand, why the devotion to the main idea that this is housing. As I said there is no housing shortage right now, prices are dropping, homes are foreclosing, etc. It seems to me that any community that starts based on this runs the risk of being extremely elitist and primarily those that are rich looking for something novel. That is not a good base for something that you want to last.
There is nothing that says
There is nothing that says you cannot build a seastead and use it for things other than housing (business, industry, charity, other organizations etc etc). All human activities can benefit from the possibility of setting your own rules.
Most new things are by necessity elitist and expensive at first. Those who have lots of money pay a high premium for exclusivity for a period of time, basically sponsoring the development costs of new products. Then, after a while, prices go down and it becomes available to the masses. This is the history of practically all technology.
Of course, nobody can say with absolute certainty whether seasteading will succeed or fail. But we won´t know this unless we try.
Read the book/paper. In particular the concept of Dynamic Geography is important to understand IMHO.
Some clarifications
Sean, while your scepticism is understandable, a few points set seasteading apart from other similar ventures:
1) Patri has specifically mentioned various reasons for the failure of earlier attempts, viz, overambition, lack of economic perspective etc. He's taken these causes into account and is proceeding in an incremental manner, starting with a close-to-shore small-scale effort and moving up from there.
2) The economic problem is obvious and has been discussed earlier, that we have to have something to give back in return for the various imports we'll need. I personally believe that we could start off by having people who get their income from in silico work such as software coding, graphics, and other such low-resource distance-irrespective professions. Others have suggested relying on tourism etc. Anyway, there's no ignorance of the centrality of the economy issue. We're all hard-nosed and realistic people here.
3) While we might be getting ahead of ourselves by discussing ideal political systems etc, this is the prime motivation for most people here, and serves to retain interest.
My response:
1) The incremental approach that you are talking about seems to be based on housing, this makes it no different than any other development on shore. Different view, different location but still just housing.
2) a. All I was saying is that there are proven money making operations (wind farms) using available technology, that there is an urgent need for. To me it would make more sense to develop a prototype along the lines of the companies I mentioned before, in order to get a foothold in this seasteading realm. Future designs of wind farm spar buoys could include living quarters, etc. and people could begin moving off shore at a later date. To use money time and effort to design a spar buoy "home" is a waste. It is a proven commodity, its just a fancied up oil rig, people live on those all the time, I have probably spent over a year cummulative living on them. You are proving something that has already been proven. b. I agree that people who are in your line of work could live on and make money from a seastead, I also assume that you could live anywhere else you chose as well. Your income is not going to increase exponentially just because you live on a seastead and I don't think that it will ever be a cheaper more economicall alternative to dry land housing in and of itself.
Thank You for taking the time to respond to my post, I apreciate your thoughts.
Sean
Housing?
Our current focus is on the first seastead to be a "Coaststead" - basically a low regulation business park / free trade zone off of the SF Bay. So I don't think saying that we are focused on housing is particularly accurate. If we're going to build ocean cities, people are going to live there. They are going to need houses. So there must be housing involved - I don't understand how you build ocean cities with no houses. But that doesn't mean it is the only business model. Or even the primary one.
Also, I think you are greatly underestimating the whole "dynamic geography" point. I have a specific theory why life on modular ocean cities will be different and better than life on land. Unless you have a reason why you think my theory is wrong, then your complaints about this being "nothing new" and the "same old" are totally off base. Modular, rearrangeable cities are something the world has never seen. (Well, there have been nomad tribes - but we've never seen it in an advanced society). Oil rigs are not modular and rearrangeable. Neither are boats. Neither are communes. If we can make such a city, it will be new, and I think better.
I welcome criticism based on a good understanding of our ideas, but yours doesn't seem to be. This is probably as much (or more) my fault for not making the website more informative, as it is yours for not reading it carefully. The conference video will be up in a few weeks - I recommend watching it to get a good idea of our current thoughts on strategy.
I think the problem may be
I think the problem may be with both of us. I understand the appeal of being able to vote with your feet would have to the founding of new societies, and think that I have a grasp of what you are shooting for. My focus on housing, most likely wrong, is taken directly from your website, the first thing I read was your press release of 9/8 “Beat High Housing Costs on the High Seas” and I think that from then on my viewpoint was skewed.
I have not apparently been very clear in my posts. “Unless you have a reason why you think my theory is wrong, then your complaints about this being "nothing new" and the "same old" are totally off base.” I do not think your theory is wrong, quite frankly I am probably not smart enough to judge it. My thoughts have nothing to do with the seastead as Petri dishes for new governments or advanced societies, or your vision of the future, or… and I am sorry if I went off on that tangent. Let me see if I can state my point a little more succinctly.
I was simply suggesting that a truly viable, existing, commercial enterprise that exploits resources that are valuable commodities would make a better base to start seastead communities from. People follow money, money does not necessarily follow people and to have a community you need people. I would think the more people the better, hence start with a commercial goal.
"I welcome criticism based on a good understanding of our ideas, but yours doesn't seem to be." So I am not supposed to post on this forum because my understanding is not up to par? Is there a test I should have taken before hand to insure that I was knowledgeable enough to bother you all? That is why I posted on this forum, so that I could better understand what you were trying to accomplish and how you were planning to get there.
Dynamic Geography
Here is why I think your theory of dynamic Geography is wrong:
Let us assume that a single residence is the smallest unit. This seastead must be able to be self sufficient. That means it must generate its own power for movement, its own food, its own water, it must maintain its integrity as a shelter, it must perform its own maintenance, etc. All of these things and more it must do to maintain its autonomy, its “freedom of physical association.”
The problem with self sufficiency is that it is not very efficient. All of these things take resources that could be used in other more efficient ways. Everything is a trade off, power for food, food for water, etc. There are so many things to know and do in order to be self sufficient that nothing is done to its full potential, a jack of all trades and an expert at none. Self sufficiency has traditionally been a subsistence living, meaning the minimum necessary to support life.
Now lets move up to the next level, multiple single residences linked together, and the basis of a community. When you take a group of people and put them together nobody is the same, I mean some work harder, some know more, etc. So what happens, people begin to specialize in order to improve their lives. If Sally is better at growing plants then Bob, it makes sense that in this community Sally would begin to take over growing food, she can do this because Bob, who now gets his vegetables from Sally can devote more time to fishing, thus he will catch more fish and provide Sally with fish in exchange for vegetables and so forth and so on. The end result is that everyone finds their niche because it is more efficient to do so, creating a spider web of supply and demand, interlocked goods and services.
As the community grows so do the amount and type of goods and services and again the only way to be good at any thing is to specialize in it. So say you now have an international banking platform, a food producing platform, a production/manufacturing platform, an energy producing platform. These platforms would each be specialized because it does not make sense to do it any other way, and now though they may be individual entities they cannot survive without each other. For example the banking platform, I guess you could distribute the work and whatever computer systems over multiple platforms and if someone did not want to participate they could take their portion of the bank with them, but who would put money in a bank that by its very nature could be here today and gone tomorrow. Self sufficiency has been lost, meaning autonomy has been lost, meaning that no individual entity can leave without losing what it needs to survive. Leaving is no longer easy.
Feel free to tell me I am wrong, or stupid, or misunderstanding what you are saying, but please... please, explain why!
Self Sufficiency Not Needed
Self sufficiency is not needed. The only requirements are that each seastead be able to float independently. A desirable requirement is that the seastead be "safe" and "comfortable". Water, energy, and food self-sufficiency is not required. If you have a product (e.g. fish from a fish farm, or the ability to write computer code, etc.) you can trade/buy whatever you are in short supply of from either other seasteads or land based economies. Specialization is good in the sense that you concentrate your experience on what you are good at and purchase stuff from other experts.
If there N communities of seasteads and you are free to select one or try to convince a members of other seasteads to leave the one they are in and start community N+1. Yes, the larger seasteads will have more services, but ultimately the choice is yours.
Caveat
I love the idea of seasteading, I want to see somebody make it work.
Your responses have some depth and breadth to them and I apreciate that. It is a nice change from sarcastic one liners that make this project seem like a seasteading cult. Belittling people for asking questions and being curious does not do anything to move the idea forward. I wouldn't ask questions and waste my time and others on this if I did not feel it was a worth while venture. I may not agree with all of the arguments and motivations that I have read on this website, but my point in asking questions and proposing ideas is to better understand the thought process behind all of this. Cogent arguements and thoughtfull ambassadors that are not stuck on a single doctrine are what every new venture needs.
Sean: Clearly a seastead is
Sean:
Clearly a seastead is far more expensive than land-based housing of the same area. There are no illusions here that we're making a breakthrough in housing technology etc. The advantage a seastead gives us is to take us out of the borders of established countries whose political systems we find sub-optimal, so we can experiment with better ways of running society. THAT is what seasteading is about. And we're not really sea-loving people. It's just that it's the only unoccupied space available. If there was an unclaimed island or landmass out there, we'd be there in a jiffy.
Can you provide some numbers or firm information about your sea based wind-farm? Costs, maintenance, comparisons to land based electricity etc? IIt's an interesting possibility.
Numbers
This link is to a Stanford study of Californias winds and potential wind farm sites, one of the best locations would be off the coast near Eureka ( as far as winds go). The location has problems with energy transmission though.
http://www.stanford.edu/~dvorak/papers/offshore-wind-ca-analysis-awea-2007.pdf
Off shore winds are much stronger and more stable than onshore winds, there are benefits and drawbacks. Read the articles at these links to get some ideas of what is being done on the east and gulf coasts.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/new_jersey_choses_developer_fo.html
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/new-jersey-approves-offshore-wind-farm/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101967.html
Many companies are touting this as the future of energy, primarily on the East Coast due to the shallower depths encountered. California with its steep offshore drop off poses more problems and a higher cost per MW. However if you want to Seastead and are going to invest the energy, time and money, why not kill two birds with one stone. There are numerous grants and Colleges looking for people to apply the concepts, including one MIT design I have found that has designed a Tension Leg Platform wind turbine that would generate over 5 MW per unit.
WindFloat
The navel architects working for the seasteading institute are also working to build and deploy an ocean based turbine called
Wind Float . There is serious money being spent on this project. Off shore wind turbines make a great deal of sense, providing the platform cost is not excessive.
Windfloat could use WaterWalker
I think my WaterWalker could be much cheaper for holding a windmill. Might have those guys look at it:
http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/User:Vincecate/WaterWalker
Not Just Housing
Seasteading is not just about housing. It is about building a viable economy on the ocean. For that you need housing, jobs, and, yes, recreation.
Housing is important, but not central. The cruise ship industry houses its service personal on board the ship for the better part of a year; cruise ship customers are on board for a week or two. Likewise, the oil and gas industry houses its personal on platform for weeks/months duration. Cargo ships and navel vessels house there personal for months at a time as well. However, housing is not the end goal. The money making mission -- entertainment, fishing, finding oil, moving cargo, maintaining peace, etc. is what drives existing people to live on the seas for an extended period of time.
The initial seasteads will probably be used for fairly mundane tasks -- ocean research, housing for aquaculture personal, etc. Over time they should evolve into small villages and towns. I expect to be long dead before cities and independent countries emerge.