One of my major projects during the summer and fall of this year will be getting the seasteading book in shape for publication (initially via POD). I have a giant pile of links and ideas about little sections to write – there is an arbitrary amount of nuance, fun speculation, and neat technologies that could go into the book. But I don’t have time, and even if I did the final result would be hugely bloated. So I need to start by 80/20ing the book – nuance and fun can be added later.
I want your help. I’m going to create two lists, one for chapters, one for smaller topics. We’ll start with chapters. So I’m asking you: what are the aspects of seasteading which should be discussed in the detail of a full chapter? Please add items, comment, and vote on this list:
I think you should ask: what function exactly does the book serve? I don’t think it’s going to be a best-seller. It might convince new people to join up, but it’s probably not the most efficient way to reach people.
One role the book could serve is to inspire more people to do seasteading research. There are a lot of Phd students in political science, philosophy, architecture etc looking for good topics. If you give the book a sort of academic air, some of them might do free research for TSI as part of their studies. Use the phrase “… many open research questions remain regarding this topic” often.
I can even imagine someone starting a “Journal of Seasteading Research” that discusses all the problems set forth in the book, in greater depth.
The purpose of the book, from my perspective, is to elevate those who read it to a high level of knowledge about all of the challenges and strategies involved in seasteading. So that each person who has read it can discuss/advocate seasteading with as much detail and nuance as those of us who have been thinking about the issues for many years. Basically, to capture all the important ideas, as of one time, in one place, so that any common concern or objection is addressed. Not necessarily in a 100% convincing way – that’s impossible, since there are serious challenges – but so that discussion can at least proceed from a base of understanding of the issue and how it might be addressed, rather than from ignorance.