Forum Replies Created
October 15, 2014 at 9:38 am #24121
in the context of “future of marine business” do me a favor and split this topic in a “dedicated thread”
Wow you really are a forum fascist, aren’t you?
I don’t see how my post in any way derails this thread. First, I called you an idiot for condescendingly dismissing the idea that growing cannabis is a viable marine business that might lead to seasteading…suggesting that the idea be posted in the crazy ideas thread. Second, I posted links to three specific articles that show how wrong you are and how big the cannabis industry has become…and how much money investors are willing to give to entrepreneurs who can grow it efficiently and cheaply. A seastead would be an excellent place to grow cannabis, and there are many investors who take this business model very seriously…despite your dismissal of them all as “pot-heads”.
when you put it in a context of a floating medical research facility for heavyly restricted research areas…might really work well on a seastead
I work for pharma, and I don’t think you have the most basic understanding of what it takes to do biomedical research. Do you know the reagents required for even the most college-level chemistry, let alone the complex reactions required to make drug precursors…how incredibly dangerous and restricted they can be? Do you know the computing and energy requirements needed to run even the most rinky-dink chemistry and biology lab dedicated to producing pharmaceuticals? I don’t think you do, because if you did there is no way you would consider biological and pharmaceutical research as a viable marine business over growing cannabis which can be done by most teenagers…
If you want to go on about cutting-edge medical research on a seastead, do me a favor and split this topic in a “dedicated thread”…rest assured I will NOT post there because it is ridiculous.October 15, 2014 at 9:15 am #24120
Any food including a T-bone steak can be grown with cell culture in a glass box skipping the (today obsolete) way over a living cow.
Wow. We are a looooong way from growing a steak via cell culture…let alone something like a T-bone. What would you use for the bone?!!
I will agree 100% that the future of meat production is cell culture. More and more countries every year are moving towards first-world status, and with that comes demand for a first-world diet…and with that comes meat. Lots of meat. There won’t be enough resources to grow all the animals required to supply that many people with meat at the amounts they need…let alone want…using traditional techniques. So just as with agriculture, we need to find a new more efficient method for producing the products we want and need.
While I think cultured meat is the only viable way to do this, we are still many years away from efficiently producing basic products that resemble pink slime let alone a highly-structured dense product like a steak. So I most certainly wouldn’t say that living cows are “today obsolete”.October 15, 2014 at 9:03 am #24119
How much land does it takes to be self reliant?
Traditional land-based agriculture will never work in a seastead…land is too expensive, as you state. A seastead will have to embrace new agricultural technologies such as aeroponics.
1) Grow cycles are more than 1/3 shorter than conventional farming…you get a LOT more produce per year
2) It is much less labor-intensive and requires far fewer resources
3) It can be done indoors and you can pack far more plants per ft^2
There is a company called Tower Garden that makes small, cheap vertical garden aeroponic systems. For $600 you get a system that can grow 28 plants…tomatoes, squash, lettuce, beans, and many other fruits, veggies, herbs, and flowers…in a 2.5’x2.5’x6′ space. There are other high-density aeroponic systems that can grow 126 plants using only 1.62 ft^2. This is the only way a seastead will produce agricultural products in any sufficient quantity.
How much would it cost to feed 1 person a day on a seastead located 1500 nm from shore? Around $70/day.
By this number I assume you mean shipping food from somewhere else to feed the population. I really have my doubts about that number, but even assuming it is accurate you are now totally dependent on outside actors for your entire food system. That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. For a seastead to succeed as a viable experiment in new forms of government, culture, etc it needs to be free from outside influence, and a large part of that means being self-reliant in food and energy production. No seastead can achieve that using conventional agriculture, but I believe it would be very possible using high-capacity ultra-high-density aeroponic systems.
Some pretty pictures:
BTW no matter what ellmer says I totally agree that cannabis would be a very lucrative cash crop for a seastead. It requires very little growing space, can be done completely indoors, the medicinal market is booming, and many countries are looking to import:
Canada is willing to purchase marijuana from Jamaica, a lucrative deal that could potentially earn billions of dollars for the country on an annual basis: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140121/lead/lead1.htmlOctober 14, 2014 at 9:29 am #24106
people talk about economic nonsense like “hunting endangered fish species to extinction” or “gowing weed on a seastead”
The High Times Growth Fund aims to raise $200 million-$300 million to invest in the legal marijuana industry
This week, Christian Groh will visit a 60,000-square-foot marijuana farm in Canada, one of the biggest such facilities in the world…The firm raised $22 million from investors last year and will soon close on another $50 million in funding
the size of the noncriminal marijuana industry is expected to grow to about $2.6 billion this year from about $1.5 billion last year
While I don’t use marijuana, and don’t believe it should be used recreationally, calling the industry “economic nonsense” while going on about serving chicken soup to workers on barges makes you sound like a loon.August 15, 2014 at 9:16 am #23791
Sovereignty of the island is disputed; both Canada and the United States claim sovereignty.
So obviously this would not be a free governing colony in that area. That is why I brought up “Gray Areas”
Exactly. “Disputed” doesn’t mean “unclaimed”. Somebody owns those areas, it just hasn’t been settled as to whom that is. And your choices are to create a colony under US or Canadian law depending on who wins the claim….so not much difference there and certainly not “free governing”.
Even worse with these kinds of disputed areas, you could setup a colony under the territorial law of one very liberal and “free” country, and then suddenly have that area’s claim shift to another more conservative and aggressive country…so not a great idea setting up in ANY area claimed by anyone.June 12, 2014 at 12:00 pm #23656
er,smith, how necessary is it to disscuss lengthy and forum cluttering about the OBVIOUS ?
Hello, Kettle? This is the Pot. You’re black.June 12, 2014 at 8:22 am #23654
in the USA there is little that is sacrosanct (or pretty)
Er, you need to be careful in throwing out statements like that:
It would be interesting to see if those that chose to experiment
That is the key here, isn’t it. You have to design a system that would allow inhabitants like Ken and I to stay in a place we have designed and enjoy, while allowing others to demo-and-rebuild at will. Where do all the materials come from? Do they have to pay for a new home each time? Will you expect inhabitants like Ken and I to subsidize those others who wish to keep rebuilding? What about infrastructure…will these experimental designs still have to conform to standards for safety/power/communication/waste? I think you need to put a little more thought into the basics of the system.
Families that have little foundation produce children who are far less able to cope in the world.
Show some sources for your information, please. I happen to know several people who came from military backgrounds. They moved all over the world, never in one place for a very long time, and they are very capable of coping in the world…perhaps more so than some people whose families have lived in the same little town for four generations. I really don’t think consistent architecture has a large impact on one’s ability to survive in the world.March 13, 2014 at 8:37 am #23097
all the house are the same.
That’s the beauty of the 3D printing idea…every house can be custom-created for the individual user. The reason all the houses in your example are the same is because a single construction company used the same forms over-and-over to build each house. With 3D printing the customer can sit down and create their own custom house, upload the blueprint, and the machine builds the house exactly to those specifications down to outlet, conduit, and window locations. If anything 3D printing will cause more variation in structures in a given area.
Plus, there’s no steel rebar
Contour Crafting has a whole section of their technical paper where they discuss using the robotic arm to insert reinforcement systems, from steel mesh to other advanced materials.
You can find the paper here: http://contourcrafting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AIC2004-Paper1.pdf
I believe what is so interesting about this technology is the ability to customize the rig for all situations. A rig that prints houses in a hurricane zone can be customized to use high-strength reinforcing materials, while a rig that prints houses in another area might not require that module.
Plus you can use this technology to print subsections as well, just walls and slabs that users can then assemble on the fly. Even furniture can be custom printed. This will allow a seastead to be self-reliant when it comes to on-site construction and fabrication.January 31, 2014 at 3:08 pm #22781
how do i attach them to a structure in a way they don’t shatter?
You don’t attach the mooring system at all. If you’re talking about using a sphere like ellmer then I would use some kind of netting, like this:
Then you simply attach the looped part to a mooring line (or lines, preferably) and you’re set. There is no single attachment point to act as the single point of failure, or that takes all the stress.
You could use this method even if the submerged habitat wasn’t a sphere. It would work fine for fish cages as well…January 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm #22596
I didn’t say the billionaire would build the seastead. Do you even read? The billionaire would form a sovereign nation that would act as a ship registry to supply seasteads with a flag of convenience. People are on their own building their own seasteads based on whatever they like.
And you’ll need a billionaire to build the seastead as well. If you think US$167M is a lot for 300 people in protected waters, what do you think it will be on the open ocean?January 3, 2014 at 11:19 am #22591
but we didn’t even touch the subject of owning territorial waters and an EEZ
Once you have an ocean-facing sovereign piece of land, you automatically have territorial waters and an EEZ. You have to enter into negotiations with neighboring nations to work out the borders, etc. But those are rights granted to sovereign nations in UNCLOS, not something you have to pay for.
you might not get shit if mobile
Under UNCLOS you can declare a “safety zone” around artificial installations of up to 500m. Not exactly an EEZ but it’s something…
Since you own the floating island, claim it as territory and try for state recognition NOT WITH UN, but first with “cool” states like Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc,
We’ve had this debate before…I don’t care how “cool” the state is there is no one who is going to grant territory status to a floating block of concrete. I don’t care how much dirt is piled up on it, or how big it is, or how well established your online micronation is. The only chance you would have of getting “territory” would be if you built up a structure from the ocean floor, and even then I think it improbable.
Without territory (platform or island, no matter which) there is no sovereignty. Built or buy don’t really matter. For sovereignty you’ll have to invest, no matter what. Yes maybe the foolproof way might be to have a country cede a piece of sovereign land….but that could turn out to be he most expensive way.
It is still my opinion that you cannot build territory, so it does matter. I believe that getting an existing country to sell you a piece of land, which then becomes its own sovereign country, is the best course of action. Will it be expensive? You bet. Incredibly expensive.
But, as I’ve said in other threads, we don’t need a huge piece of land. It can be a crappy piece of blasted rock in the middle of nowhere. As long as it’s recognized as a sovereign nation we can create our own ship registry and allow mobile or stationary seasteads to fly our own flag. We can create a Seastead Nation which exists for the sole purpose of allowing seasteads of all kinds to be flagged under an existing state. This Seastead Nation will not care what kind of government you have on your seastead, what kind of construction it is. It will have no say in how you run your seastead, although there may have to be some restrictions for the sake of maintaining some good relations (no human trafficking, weapons of mass destruction, etc). It will allow seasteads on the high seas to be flagged, so as to avoid the rules about un-flagged vessels, and yet retain near complete autonomy.
So we don’t need an entire atoll. Just something that stays above the water surface and allows us to maintain a permanent population and working government. It doesn’t even need to be on the water, although that would be nice. I’m sure we could possibly convince Eritrea, which is a highly corrupt nation with a GDP of only US$3B, to part with one of the small islands in the bay outside Asseb in the Southern Red Sea Region. It may cost a billion or so, but imagine how much further that billion would go to advancing seasteading than the money so far spent. If only we knew of a billionaire who is a huge proponent of seasteading…June 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm #22028
>There’s other reasons for a balloon to fall down,
>But if the wind stops, i hope the generator up there doesn’t land in the ocean!
>It would have to be reeled in if the winds die down
I was responding to both of you discussing what to do if the winds die down, not any kind of failure situation.
Bird hits aren’t going to do anything, because even if a bird runs into the wind turbine and damages it, the aerostat stays aloft. You can just reel in the aerostat, repair/replace the turbine, and then let the aerostat back up to production height.
You certainly don’t have to worry about deterioration. Aerostats do not use plastic, the envelope is usually a treated fabric (like coated ripstop nylon) or some other treated material such as the High Strength Laminated Aerostat Material (HSLAM) used by Raven Industries. The HSLAM has been tested in extreme situations like severe summer thunderstorms and extreme high temperatures, and nylon is incredibly weather resistant. They will most certainly not break down from “being out in the sun all day”.
You also don’t have to worry about lightning strikes, as most aerostats are designed to survive them by using hardened tethers and other methods. It’s possible the turbines attached to the aerostat could be damaged, but again you just reel in the aerostat, repair/replace the turbine, and then send it back up.
Hits by aircraft are easily avoided as well by notifying all surrounding air traffic about the location of the aerostats. Plus, your seastead is probably not going to be anywhere near where low-flying planes are travelling. There are plenty of methods, from radio signals to beacon lights, to protect from the odd low-flying plane.
And if you are worried about meteor strikes then your risk-benefit analysis is WAY too detailed.June 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm #22027
There are plenty of groups experimenting with large-scale concrete 3D printing, for applications in the housing industry. This is both high-throughput printing of modules and components that are assembled on-site, all the way up to large-scale printing of entire structures.
Future of Construction Process: 3D Concrete Printing
There is no reason why you couldn’t design a large-scale concrete 3D printer that can create entire single-family seasteads…or modules for creating large modular concrete structures.
Seacrete is a non-starter. Never going to happen.June 7, 2013 at 9:10 am #22024
First of all, the point of using an airborne wind turbine is that the turbine is at a height where the wind never dies down. You raise the turbine up into the high wind streams that are constantly circulating the globe. You’re never going to get as high as the jet stream, but there are constant winds at 800-1000m that never stop. So you get constant power generation.
Secondly, most airborne turbines don’t actually use the wind to stay aloft. You use aerostats or large balloons that have their own lifting force, with large wind turbines attached. You let the balloons go up to a high altitude, where the wind turbines generate power. So if for some reason the wind dies down the turbines stop producing power, but the balloon stays in the air.
An airborne turbine would definately put a larger force on a seastead than a tower turbine, but that is because it is generating MORE power due to 1) the higher wind speeds at higher altitudes, and 2) the constant wind as opposed to intermittent wind at lower altitudes. Also the aerostat itself will be affected by the wind, and the drag will be felt by the seastead. So you’ll have to design your station-keeping system to handle the higher loads…June 7, 2013 at 8:54 am #22023
Well they made $345 just for shooting a video with their iphone and editing it with MSPaint so it wasn’t a total bust. “A sucker born every minute” is underestimating the number of suckers and the rate at which they are born…