I have no problem with people picking it apart. I answer assumptions and contrary opinions as they come with my limited knowledge. I welcome people who argue their case and I expect them to respect my arguments too. What I don't accept are people who ridicule other's idea and offer nothing helpful to the discussion other than snide remarks because it goes against how they believe things should happen.
We do worry about food production. That's why from the very start, we create our structure around the idea of food production, residential quarters and clean drinkable water. As for CO2, I don't really see the problem with our method of construction. Risenia's method of construction involves de-acidizing the water by taking carbon from the sea (carbonic acid) and sending it back to the atmosphere. After which, maybe the carbon dioxide can be captured and utilized or stored away, though we are not so concerned about that yet. At a large enough scale, Risenia project can slow down the acidization of the oceans by removing carbon from where it's not needed as a byproduct of our construction method.
We do have a blueprint of the superstructure drawn (not finalized and not professional grade) and that was how he was able to convince those rich kids to foot the bill and agree to make him king.
Thank you for your words.
But I must state that we are of no threat to any of the other projects (imagined or real) because we are not here to get funding from the small pool shared by many fish. We already have funding, it may be smaller than we'd like and our research funding may be miniscule but we have enough money to build the superstructure of the megastructure at least. Any more funding and development can be acquired later from companies through trade concessions or special rights. We are not worried about this. The running joke among us is "He can sell water to dolphins and get payment in gold".
Yes, among the reason why we chose the kingdom model or in your and Elwar's case, the company model, is because it's a lot easier to get recognition. If you get something built, you have a constitution and a set of laws, you have proven that your government is somewhat stable and can be trusted on not to go crazy, it's only a matter of time before your kingdom seastead gets recognition. Even if it's not granted a full country status.
Libertarian societies on the other hand are so different that established countries look at them with suspicion if not outright hostility. Libertarian societies offer low or no taxation, discrete banking practices, the freedom to create and distribute banned substances and among others, the legalization of child pornography. No, I'm not saying that a libertarian society will abuse their freedom and legalize money laundering, create child pornography or trade in methamphetamine, I'm saying the established nations fear that they will, among other fears. Libertarian societies have existed for years, but they don't go overboard and thus were barely tolerated. The members still pay government taxes, abide by banking laws and they don't try to go independent. When you create a libertarian society in the open ocean, you are trying to go independent and they don't take kindly to that.
Regardless, whether it's libertarianism, kingdom, republic or company, Part 5, Article 60 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea considers 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'. Therefore, regardless of the form of governance there is little chance for a seastead to be recognized by the UN. But we're not worried about that much, because this is just a convention, we do not care being part of the United Nations. Individual countries can still recognize our sovereignity. We'll fight it one step at a time.
Or we can take a different method by poking holes in the convention, stating that we didn't build it. Because the sea built it for us.
I do not worry about criticisms too much, but at least people should address the issue instead of ridiculing it just because they can't understand how it can work. This isn't a movie maniac or college forum. This is a professional community, and everyone should take childishness out of the equation and be professionally critical, even if they're not a professional in that field. As for criticisms once the actual seastead are out there, I'll just sneer at them and think of it as the bark of a loser while saying, "I've built it, what have you built?" But until that happens, I guess I'm still somewhat insecure and being ridiculed without being told why it won't work really piss me off.