• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Should we invest in seasteading?

SugarFreeJazz

not present
What is seasteading? Seasteading is the "concept of creating permanent dwellings at sea, called seasteads, outside the territory claimed by the government of any standing nation." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading)

In other words, floating autonomous cities.

The idea behind seasteading is that people would be given the opportunity to experiment with various forms of government. By pioneering new and innovative (ideally) ways of doing this, they would then attract people from around the world to join the "city". If all goes well, this flourishing new community will inspire other governments around the world to reform their ways to how the seastead (again, ideally) does it.

Here's a list of FAQ on the "official" website for the promotion of seasteading. Although be aware that there's always a chance for bias in the answers.

http://seasteading.org/about-seasteading/frequently-asked-questions
 
Last edited:

02939

Missingno
Not really.

One. Food. A little difficult to come by on a floating city.

Two. Water. Yes, you would be surrounded by it, but the salt water would have to be purified, (by evaporation and re-condensation) and that's energy consuming and highly impractical.

Those could be imported, but that would be tricky, and I don't know how ready countries would be to do it, especially with the economy like it*is.

Three. Haven't various forms of government already been experimented with? When people revolt, they often establish a different form of government.

I've got to run, so I'll just spit out my last concern for now: what impacts will it have on the ocean?

I'll be back later. (hopefully)
 

DannyB01

Well-Known Trader
I would personally argue that any of the points made in the above post are invalid, largely because the seasteads wouldn't actually need to be too far from coastal cities.

Crops are not grown in cities for example, food is transported to the cities themselves, so transporting it a little bit further shouldn't be a problem.

Water and amenities are sorted out via underground pipes, cables and sewers. There is no reason why pipes shouldn't run along the sea floor carrying water, gas and electricity to the seastead, and it would work not much differently after that than in a normal city. With the correct construction, the seastead's sewers could be connected to the neighboring city's sewer system. Though this would require considerable upgrading and development, the costs would likely be worth it for the country's government as the prospect of so much new building area is great. But if there were an issue i can see how pollution would be it, evidence from venice for example.

I'm quite for seastead's, beats the alternative people are looking at which is subterranean buildings. Best thing of course would be floating sky cities or something just cos they're cool. :D
 
I've got to run, so I'll just spit out my last concern for now: what impacts will it have on the ocean?
Considering the vast portion of our globe is covered with water...practically nothing.


I don't think new, experimental types of government are a worthwhile reason for doing something like this.

I also think that floating cities are for wimps. But the ocean is great. Real geniuses build underwater!
 

Tyrant Tar

Well-Known Member
A city takes a LOT of funding to be built. Being autonomous would mean zero support from any government, it'd have to import a lot of food/oil/etc. from foreign countries, and being out in the ocean means it's not very accessible. Since a seastead would probably end up relying a lot on nearby cities anyways, I think realistically they'd be made boroughs of said cities.

EDIT: "Experimenting with various forms of government" is just asking for trouble. For starters, who's deciding on what government to "experiment" with?

Considering the vast portion of our globe is covered with water...practically nothing.
That's dangerous thinking. The Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans already have "garbage patches;" mostly made of stuff invisible to the naked eye, but deadly to life nonetheless. Putting a full city directly in the ocean will invariably add loads more pollution.
 
Last edited:

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
Can't libertarians just buy unused cruise ships; refurbish and expand them, set up supply and maintenance links and have several floating and moving villages that way?

As for the logistics of city life, food, water and energy etc, may I remind people that we already can and do build stable and resource supplied oil-rigs. A floating 'city' is just going to be a larger, more comfortable and residential friendly oil-rig.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Yeah in Detroit(about 20 minutes from my house) I only have to worry about getting shot, robbed or stabbed. In one of these glorified house boats you have to worry about Tsunami's! I'll take the thugs. K. Thx. Bye!
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Detroit hasn't had a respectable Hurricane or Earthquake in... forever, so the I'll still go with keeping our cities on land thanks.
 

Charizardfan900

Charizard King!
I think we should but money into developing the idea.

I think this because if the polar ice caps do melt and the land starts to get flooded, then we should be prepared. it is either this, flying cities or we all go live in the mountains.

But we shouldn't do it now. We have a good life on the ground or near land. Floating cities, for now, should be kept to books(And this has given me an idea for a story.)
 

Avenger Angel

Warrior of Heaven
It's really not necessary. There's plenty of undeveloped and vacant land. And really, the excuse of just wanting to get away from government is silly, as there will always be some kind of government and administration in action. Society can't thrive for long under anarchy.

I honestly just see seasteading as more of a novelty. One that's probably too expensive for what it's worth.
 

Grei

not the color
This makes me think of Alcatraz. The whole reason Alcatraz was shut down (as a prison) was because water and food needed to be shipped there, either by boat or by plane. If there was a hurricane, besides the massive damage dealt to the city, there would be no way to bring food and water to the city due to the choppy waves and windy conditions. That, and if it was tied to no government, all of that food and water would have to come from someplace else. What non-government source would be able to provide enough food for an entire city?

Then, consider the fact that it's a ton of people essentially trapped on a floating city. What if something happened to cause the city to capsize? What if a murderer or psychopath roamed the city? What if the new form of government shifts into something of a dictatorship? I'm sure there are emergency personnel for this sort of stuff, but even so, should a number of crises occur, the people in the seastead would essentially be stranded until outside help could rescue them.

It's a wonderful idea, but in practice it probably wouldn't last long. In fact, it sounds like a potential nightmare, as cool as the idea is in one's imagination. Maybe once we develop the means of purifying water at high speeds and astronaut food catches on, it'd be a possible route to take.
 

Manafi's Dream

フェアリータイプタイム
Not really.

One. Food. A little difficult to come by on a floating city.

Two. Water. Yes, you would be surrounded by it, but the salt water would have to be purified, (by evaporation and re-condensation) and that's energy consuming and highly impractical.

Those could be imported, but that would be tricky, and I don't know how ready countries would be to do it, especially with the economy like it*is.

Three. Haven't various forms of government already been experimented with? When people revolt, they often establish a different form of government.

All of these are good points. You cannot realistically assume that a city not belonging to any established country would find help from the rest of the world whenever they find themselves in trouble.

I've got to run, so I'll just spit out my last concern for now: what impacts will it have on the ocean?

This is a very good point. The amount of trash a large city on the ocean could produce would be catastrophic to oceanic wildlife if not properly cared for. Not to mention plumbing...
Aside from the above, there are also possibilities of freak accidents like the effects of a tsunami, tropical storm, famine, communications with the outside world being cut off during a state of emergency, etc. There are too many things that can go wrong with such an undertaking that I find it ridiculous to even think about it. As mattj said previously, it is only a fairy tale.
 

02939

Missingno
Okay, so the thing about importing food is, wouldn't that mean outside influence? The countries where the food is coming from could impact the city a lot. They'd have the control! And the imports would have to be consistent. If the country giving the food was having hard times, well, then the city's out of luck!

And with water in underground tubes ... is it just me, or is that a little too far down? It's possible, but it would be hard and costly.

Even if these two were possible, the city would still be dependent on the outside world, which seems ironic.

And as many people have pointed out, if there's a storm, the people there would be stuck. Get a bad enough storm, and no planes or boats can get in, and people go hungry. Yes, they city would stock up food, but still, it's a risk.

And even in good weather, the city's still pretty isolated.

And if someone, just one someone, manages to take an axe to whatever's supporting the city, keeping it from sinking, then everyone goes down.

What would the city be made of? Wood? That could flip easily enough, with a bunch of people bustling around. Styrafoam? It would break off bit by bit, and a whole city would dump a lot of styrafoam pretty fast.

How would it be stable? An anchor on any kind of rope, metal or regular, could wear out, rust or be eaten through. Posts? Well, you'd need some seriously thick posts to be able to go that far down and withstand the current without breaking. Just floating? It could tip, and if it's a city, you'll have a bunch of people too young, too old or otherwise unable to swim and tip the whole city back up. Not to mention the damage and pollution done if everything not secured was lost in the ocean.

Posted by DannyB01
I would personally argue that any of the points made in the above post are invalid, largely because the seasteads wouldn't actually need to be too far from coastal cities.

How far is too far? Becuase, if the original idea is to work, they'd have to be far enough to not have any influence from that coastal city. There's also the chance of the city later being incorporated into the country it's near by. And if say the city's right off the coast of San Francisco. Well, that would mean that mostly, if not only, Americans would move there, right? So the point is lost.

Yes, I know, for something as big as this, there is always going to be a risk, especially on the first try. I personally just don't think it's worth the risk.
 
Top