Forum Replies Created
March 12, 2013 at 9:43 pm #21815
These two sites have plenty of information on the space and welfare requirements for various farm livestock:
The problem with any kind of terrestrial animal on a seastead will be space requirements. You are usually looking at around 10-20 broiler chickens per m^2 and around 2-3 100kg pigs per 2m^2 depending on size. You get fewer animals per a given space for “organic” ones, higher for us heathens who like more meat and care less about the animals’s feelings.
You won’t have to worry about setting aside space topside, nearly all industrial livestock farming is done completely indoors so you won’t have to worry about salt spray, animals going overboard, etc. Just set aside enough internal hull space for the number of animals you need to grow.
As for docking, there are actually only a few countries that require you to worry about animals that will remain on the vessel. They care more about animals that are going ashore. Hawaii is a total pain, requiring you to quarantine the animals ashore even if you had no plans of taking them off the boat. But plenty of countries don’t care about the animals as long as they remain on board (and sometimes require you to post a small bond). This page has some examples:
<A href=”http://books.google.com/books?id=CjIg5FgUUW8C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=boat+docking+animal+quarantine&source=bl&ots=77x3pNtCGj&sig=Fy-UC0b52eG56jtR1oZykwNY4a8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cv8_UePSFtXi4AOLmYCAAg&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=boat%20docking%20animal%20quarantine&f=false”>Landfalls of paradise</A>
So as long as you keep your farm animals onboard, and hopefully belowdecks, you shouldn’t have any issues in many ports around the world.January 11, 2013 at 11:49 am #21645
It means we can’t harvest fish, plant or harvest a crop,
Only if those resources come from the waters in the EEZ. There is no rule about planting crops in soil sitting ON the seastead, or farming fish in pools located ON the seastead. You simply cannot exploit “the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;”
So if your seastead is free floating and designated a vessel, not permanently attached to the sea floor, and able to supply all of its food needs by harvesting resources grown solely ONBOARD the seastead itself, while producing energy from solar systems, and able to dispose of all waste products onboard without dumping them overboard, then you could be in an existing nation’s EEZ without concern.
This leaves the question of what venues of lobby or petition might be pursued for added protections under international law for the rights of seasteaders to the free and unfettered use of the world’s oceans and it’s resources,
We have “free and unfettered use of the world’s oceans and it’s resources”…just not in any existing nation’s EEZ. That still leaves a hell of a lot of water for us to use…
as well as to establish recognition of their rights to maintain sovereign states and to define territory at sea,
It’s not going to happen. As I said above, the existing nations have a vested interest in not allowing floating habitats (or any other kind of habitat) to have any claim over the high seas such as those existing nations enjoy.
The recognition will have to come slowly. Once you have a massive seastead housing a few tens of thousands of people, growing your own food and manufacturing your own goods, building an infrastructure, you can begin to engage other nations in diplomacy or trade. But you need to get to that stage first before you can start worrying about those kinds of issues…January 11, 2013 at 11:48 am #21644
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions
I am now left to wonder how these modern provisions of admiralty law impact the concept of the seastead in statehood…maintaining a defined territory…
I don’t believe a permanent seastead will gain statehood until it has grown to sufficient size and had enough impact on the global stage to gain some political leeway. Palestine cannot even get statehood recognition, and it has land. I believe statehood is possible, but not for a long time. The bottleneck will always be the territory issue…and if I cannot be convinced that a floating cement block in the ocean is territory then you most certainly won’t convince existing nations.
is it safe to say that under present standards of international law, a seastead cannot lawfully define a territory in it’s own plenary capacity, and thus, cannot qualify for recognition under such articles as make provisions for statehood?
Is it safe to assume, then, that the present standards of international law are unprepared to recognize a seastead as a sovereign state,
Yes. This is, in my opinion, by design. If you could build a floating block of cement and call it a state, thus granting it territorial waters and an EEZ, then you would have existing nations simply building “seasteads” everywhere to expand their territorial waters and EEZs. All the US would have to do is drop a string of these and pretty soon their EEZ is extending out 400nm from their shores.
I would say that the existing nations have a vested interest in NOT allowing seasteads to be recognized as “states” for this reason.January 11, 2013 at 11:46 am #21643
No captain in the right mind, of any vessel, man o’war or merchant will dare tell a 200′ seastead captain with lets say 60 crew abourd,…”You can’t fish 150 miles offshore”.
Unless that vessel is the 127m USCGC Bertholf. Good luck with your 60 hungry seasteaders against that…
But who would want to hang out inside the EEZ of any nation for long??? There are at least 10 banks and/or submerged reefs in international waters that a seastead can drop the hook on and hang out there, no problem whatsoever.
I agree. True seasteading will not work in an EEZ. You need to be on the high seas, and there are plenty of shallow-ish places where that can happen.January 11, 2013 at 11:45 am #21642
What guarantee and security did the Pilgrims have at the time of landing?
None, but you cannot compare the global geopolitical landscape of 2012 with the 1600s.
Also, do you know what happened to the first group of Pilgrims? Do you want that to be the fate of your seastead?
We live in a different time. The entire face of the globe is populated, teeming with people. There are no more frontiers.
Seasteding comes with consequences too.
Yes, but if you want your seastead to become more than just a slab of concrete floating in the ocean with a 4-person tent on it you are going to need to convince people to become part of your experiment…as well as their money. And people are not going to be willing to be a part of your experiment, or give you their money, if your pitch to them is “you might all drown, but hey, that’s life right?”
gray area of laws
The problem with that is, it works both ways. When a U.S. warship comes alongside your seastead and demands you come with them for being pirates, that grey area of the laws won’t look as promising.
And may be forge something new
If there is anything the status quo hates, it’s something new. Your best bet is to work within the system as much as possible, using existing precedent.January 11, 2013 at 11:44 am #21641
That’s why the first seasteads should be mobile artificial floating islands. Then, forget about the EEZ bullshit. You are a vessel now and you have the right of passage over any EEZ whenever you want. Keep in mind that the EEZ are in the international waters. And yes, a population can exist on this floating seasteads and enjoy whatever degree of freedom they choose,…why not?
Because while you have the full right to sail within another nation’s EEZ you CANNOT collect resources. The EEZ are not international waters. From Part VII Article 86 regarding the High Seas:
The provisions of this Part apply to all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State…
So the EEZ is not considered “international waters” although, according to Part V Article 58 you have “the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines”
So you are free to sail through an existing nation’s EEZ. Just don’t fish in it…January 11, 2013 at 10:20 am #21640
Right now I’m using Firefox 184.108.40.206 on WinNT4
Respect….January 9, 2013 at 9:44 am #21623
is Sealand entitled…to maintain it’s own EEZ?
Sealand is not entitled to an EEZ under UNCLOS for the following reasons:
1) It is not a State.
2) It is technically an artificial island, and islands have their own rules under Part VIII Article 121 which says “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” It also says under Part 5 Article 60 that “Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.”
How would this impact the UK’s claimed EEZ?
Part II Article 15 deals with how States that are close to one another determine their territorial waters. Part V Article 74 (Delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent coasts) does the same for EEZs. Basically the two States have to work something out.
If Sealand expands it’s topside footprint, would it’s EEZ extend 200nm from it’s new boundaries, or previous ones? For that matter, does the accretion and erosion of soil presumably affect the footprint of a dirtside nation’s EEZ? If a nation loses a half mile of coastline due to storm erosion, does it lose a half-mile of it’s EEZ?
Part II Articles 5,6 and 7 discuss establishing the baseline from which the territorial waters and thus the EEZ are calculated. As the low-water line shifts then the boundary of the territorial waters and EEZ shift. If you lose a half-mile of coastline then your territorial waters border would shrink as well. But then Article 14 says “The coastal State may determine baselines in turn by any of the methods provided for in the foregoing articles to suit different conditions.” so the State has a great amount of leeway in determining the baseline.
For instance, Article 7 has a provision that “In localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into…the method of straight baselines joining appropriate points may be employed in drawing the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.” So if a big storm washes away a chunk of your coastline you can just draw a straight baseline across that indent and use that to determine borders, thus your territorial waters and EEZ are not impacted by the loss of coastline.December 20, 2011 at 5:05 pm #16886
I’d stay away from suction piles. They are very expensive to install, considering their size and high technical skill required to install. They require an ROV for install so that adds a lot to the cost.
You’re much better off looking at drag anchors, more specifically near-normal load vertical load anchors (NNLA), which work very well in sandy locations. They are relatively inexpensive and are much easier to install. Something like the Bruce Dennla MK4 or MK3.December 20, 2011 at 4:16 pm #16884
U.S. Geological Survey homepage has their usSEABED data online
You can use that viewer or download the raw GIS data.
The West Coast sediment viewer also has more info, you can check ganule sizes and batymetric contours:
It would help if you had a specific location in mind…or are you still looking for a suitable one?
If it’s the area I’m thinking of, around 37deg 28′ N 122deg43′W (22km west of Half Moon Bay), the bottom looks like a muddy sand mixture, very low on rocks or shells. If you move around 10km to the NW you start to lose the mud and get a much higher sand content with some shell material mixed in and even a bit of phosphorite rock. You’re looking at around 80m depth so mooring shouldn’t be too difficult or expensive.
As for currents, waves, and water temp there are plenty of links on the forums for metaocean analysis tools…December 19, 2011 at 8:46 pm #16879Elwar wrote:
Sounds like a commune to me.
Sure, I guess that’s one way to describe it.Elwar wrote:
I would certainly be willing to pay someone for the level of effort and use that they provide and then offer a suitable living space in exchange for a fair price.
That is certainly an option. If you have a method for generating your own funds, or are wealthy, you can opt to pay to live on the seastead (rent, taxes, etc) and pay for the goods you require. I’m merely offering a chance to people who might not have the funds but would be willing to work for their “passage”.Elwar wrote:
But to have everyone paid the same for varying levels and difficulty of work is a non-starter.
Why?December 19, 2011 at 2:06 pm #16876
As others have said, it’s silly talking about a fee without any of the important details. But let me put a spin on the question:
Would you be willing to work 8-hour shifts to be able to live on a city-sized seastead? Rather than have to pay rent, or taxes, you instead need to contribute in some meaningful way to the survival / maintainence of the seastead.
Every seastead will need people to monitor the energy systems, maintain the communication and network links, work the aquaculture tanks, check the aeroponics labs, cultivate the gardens, patch cement, patrol the waters, act as police, and a dozen other things that need doin’ on a seastead. Rather than force people to pay money to live on the seastead, offer them an opportunity to work for their board. I’m sure there are many more people out there who don’t have funds to buy their way onto a seastead, but would be more than willing to put in 8-hours-a-day in the sunshine planting gardens or collecting/cleaning fish.
Thoughts?December 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm #16875
“bring together and inspire people who have the capacity to launch, invest in, and/or support seasteading businesses.”
Great, another shlep for money. No wonder the media don’t take seasteading seriously…December 15, 2011 at 4:04 pm #16815admiral wrote:
Video of the entire meetup was recorded with the intent to make it available online. I was going to post the link here, but it is currently made private on Youtube. There has probably been some delay due to the US holiday as well. The presentation itself mostly focused on justification for the project from a barrier to immigration perspective, though technical issues were discussed in the Q&A afterward. I saw a tantalizing glimpse of a business presentation I would have liked to see which showed financial numbers and charts when they were bringing up a chart..
This was a while ago. Any idea on when this stuff will be declassified and made available to us mortals?December 14, 2011 at 12:11 am #16799Christopher wrote:
Ok , I guess I was wrong . It seems that depth does matter
No matter what women tell you, it ALWAYS matters…Christopher wrote:
I was able to find some spots showing 600 feet or less in some areas of the pacific and Atlantic.
Send along some lat-long coordinates and I can get you pretty accurate depths. 200m is better than 2000m but you still need to find, transport, and dump a whole heck of material to make a mountain. Plus you would be surprised how unstable a pile of rock is as a building foundation. There are lots of gaps and the big chunks like to shift and settle over time as they grind against each other. I’d be very hesitant to just dump random chunks of rock into the water and then build my house on top of the pile.
You are much better off building a solid structure 200m high, which is very easy using off-the-shelf tech.