• 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
^ please elaborate a bit? Why not?

Um, why a privately owned seastead (and who owns it? because whoever owns it is naturally in control) should care about America's money problems? Maybe not America's, but global economy will affect whether people are willing to invest in something like seasteading.

If the seastead plans on being part of the global economy, yes, it is important. Otherwise, I see no reason why they should worry about it. I'd tell you my opinion on whether or not they should be a part of the global economy, but at the moment, I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to defend it.

However, we should not just "suck it up." I shall elaborate on GrassTypes idea.
Projects that would be good ... refining solar pannels, finding a viable replacement for gasoline, schools in poor urban areas, teaching crafts, factories in America so the majority of the country's products are not imported and made in other countries, gardening (vegetables, fruit, ect) in schools, and someone knowledgable to teach the kids about it ...
I'm no economy expert, nor is this a thread about how to fix America's economy.

I agree with you 100%. Those projects should definitely be pursued in America and around the world. That doesn't mean you shouldn't invest in a seastead, especially if that seastead were to utilize every single one of those projects. If the person(s) funding the seastead had no intentions of spending their money on America anyway, then would it be a problem?

I'll respond to the rest of the posts here. I promise. I just wanted to quickly bump this up first (and it's also very late).
 

SugarFreeJazz

not present
We already have areas underwater and on the water where people can live. I fail to see a reason why we should construct whole cities on the water when we've not gone near filling out the land, and aren't really likely to ever do so, given how the human population is almost certainly going to peak in the next fifty years.

The purpose of the seastead is to provide the people living on it with the freedom to form a new autonomous government. It isn't because people are running out of space on land. And while there is still plenty of space on land, every single square inch of it is already owned by another nation.

It is your position to state how they would be anything approaching economical or a use to society, and you haven't, aside from saying that, even though it doesn't look useful, it could maybe bring us something if we'll just fully develop the idea. Forgive me, but that doesn't appear to be the soundest of bases to say, "Slash foreign aid, put those billions here instead! I'm sure that, with enough money, we could maybe get something halfway useful out of this."

Remember, the seastead would be privately funded. No preexisting government would have to worry about slashing any funds because said government wouldn't be involved in the project. And while a preexisting government could potentially give money to a group of people to help them get the seastead started, I would highly discourage that. Starting off in debt would be a bad start.

But as it is, we'd be putting a whole city floating out in the ocean. This isolates it from any trade by land. It'd be incredibly expensive (current aircraft carriers cost around 4.5 billion dollars, let alone building a whole floating city! That would also require some incredible engineering.) and maintenance would be a killer, especially since the ocean is great at corroding almost anything.
If you're referring to the Nimitz-class carrier, than yes, it does cost between 4.5-6 billion dollars to build. Take into consideration though, that it was originally 675 million dollars to produce, but it received upgraded multirole systems, hull redesign and a transition to a wider variety of offensive and defensive roles. Not to mention they also last a considerably longer amount of time than the previous models.

As for the cost of the seastead itself... I posted a link somewhere in this thread that I'll have to find. It has more information on that.

If the city springs a leak, well... that's a bummer. Would the city be capable of moving around? If so, how would it move, using what systems? It's hard to build a motor large enough to move the city, and the energy costs are astonishing. Does it just float around? Great, what about when it washes up in some country? If one crashes into San Francisco and blocks off trade routes, then what? Are we anchoring it in one place, then, and if so, how? How is an incredibly heavy city even supposed to be floating? If we'd be anchoring it down, why not just a large off-shore structure instead?

Also posted a link to more information relating to this. I'll find it and edit my post.

What would the economy be based around? Fishing? Plenty of places do that already, and they don't cost billions or more in start-up fees if you decide none of the existing fishing villages are good enough. I could go on and on about this.

I was just about to reply, but then I found this. I think it's a very thorough post, and I'm more than willing to debate on the OP's behalf.

TL;DR
The economy could focus on hydroponics, fresh water production, energy production, ocean fishing/fishing hatcheries, resource extraction and manufacturing, etc.
 

Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy

Well-Known Member
The purpose of the seastead is to provide the people living on it with the freedom to form a new autonomous government. It isn't because people are running out of space on land. And while there is still plenty of space on land, every single square inch of it is already owned by another nation.

Many countries are willing to sell some uninhabited islands as property that, while theoretically are administered to by the government, are practically independent. These have the benefits of not requiring engineering that we don't currently have, or at least that we don't have without enormous wads of cash.

You could also go the Sealand route if the opportunity passes, which fits in more with the autonomy.

Remember, the seastead would be privately funded.

What would be privately funding this? What company or individual would have any reason to go for this? People with money don't tend to have gotten there by shelling out billions so that random people can 'form a new autonomous government... unless you include banana republic sorts of governments, but I don't think that's what you were intending. Anyway, for the costs that this thing could incur, it'd still be cheaper to just blow away some third-world nation if they were already lacking that morality.

And while a preexisting government could potentially give money to a group of people to help them get the seastead started, I would highly discourage that. Starting off in debt would be a bad start.

Because these unknown 'private donors' would surely have no strings attached whatsoever to that huge amount of money, right?

If you're referring to the Nimitz-class carrier, than yes, it does cost between 4.5-6 billion dollars to build. Take into consideration though, that it was originally 675 million dollars to produce, but it received upgraded multirole systems, hull redesign and a transition to a wider variety of offensive and defensive roles. Not to mention they also last a considerably longer amount of time than the previous models.

Provided these seasteads were to be successful as you claim, how would you intend for them to be defended? Also, a very key statement at the last part. Durability is a big part of what they shelled out for, and it's arguably even more important on a city; I don't know about you, but having the city I live in collapsing into the ocean due to cheap construction would be a bit of a bummer. That aircraft carrier version with the lesser durability still costs the larger part of a billion to create, and that's without gluing a city to the whole thing.

As for the cost of the seastead itself... I posted a link somewhere in this thread that I'll have to find. It has more information on that.

Also posted a link to more information relating to this. I'll find it and edit my post.

Post when you do.

[TL;DR
The economy could focus on hydroponics, fresh water production, energy production, ocean fishing/fishing hatcheries, resource extraction and manufacturing, etc.

Most of the sectors you've listed here require a good deal of space to function, and even more to have a hope of competing, let alone factoring in all the storage and such that they would have to do while waiting to ship off their products. On these sorts of things, space is an incredibly expensive resource; it requires much more cash to construct and much more to maintain, and there's more of an area for something to go wrong.

Though the guy has an interesting point about how they would have to be forced to work harder to survive, there comes to be a threshold where that just becomes stupid for a person to do, where the obvious advantages of the other side make up for any amount of effort one could possibly get in.

For example, let's seize on that hydroponic farming. With limited space (remember, it's extremely costly) and water resources (converting from salt water to fresh isn't that cheap), you can only grow so many crops. Once they mature, the boats that come by ship them across the ocean, where they will eventually arrive at a market. At this market, these crops are expected to compete with gigantic agricultural machines that pretty much don't have the similar restrictions on space (do you know how much land the better part of a billion dollars can get you in prime agricultural territory? Hint: It's more than an aircraft carrier's worth of space) and aren't always required to be shipped over the ocean. At best, food grown in seasteads would be a novelty; I can only foresee those hydroponic plants being used effectively to feed the people on the seastead.
 
Top